top of page
< Back

The Testimony of the London Jewry against the Ministers of Henry III

Rev. Michael Adler

<plain_text><page sequence="1">The Testimony of the London Jewry against the Ministers of Henry III By the Rev. Michael Adler, D.S.O., B.A. Paper read before the Jewish Historical Society of England, June 15, 1937. " Henry III believed in the absolute power of the Crown . . . and this claim was maintained by his favourite advisers in the royal council. The death of Archbishop Langton (in 1228) followed by the fall of Hubert de Burgh (1232) left him free to surround him? self with dependent ministers, mere agents of the royal will. Hosts of hungry Poitevins and Bretons were at once summoned over to occupy the royal castles and to fill the judicial and administrative posts about the Court. . . . The whole machinery of administration passed into the hands of men ignorant and contemptuous of English government or English law. Their rule was a mere anarchy; the very retainers of the royal household turned robbers, . . . corruption invaded the judicature and judges openly took bribes This description of what took place in the days of King Henry III, written by Green, in his Short History of the English People (p. 144, ed. 1889) forms an accurate background of the story I propose to relate to you. My narrative is based upon the recent discovery in the Public Record Office of a document that has hitherto remained un? published,1 and that gives in detail the testimony of the London Jews in the year 1234 against the crimes of the King's ministers. When Hubert de Burgh, the Chief Justice, was driven from power by his i Public Record Office. K.B. 26. No. 115. B. M1</page><page sequence="2">I42 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III French rivals in the year 1232, Henry determined on a radical change of policy. He concentrated all government in the hands of his Poite vin friends. He thus practically surrendered the rule of his realm to the French courtier-prelate, Peter des Roches, Bishop of Win? chester.2 The Bishop was apparently a wealthy man, as at different times he lent the King the sum of 20,000 marks ( ? over ^400,000 to-day).3 In his hands lay all the official appointments, which he distributed among his associates. Sir Stephen de Segrave,4 who was a judge as well as being Constable of the Tower of London and other castles, was given the office of Chief Justice in place of de Burgh. He was a native of England, a " yielding man ", as Matthew Paris5 calls him, but nearly all the other State officials were French? men, tools of des Roches. Upon his son, or as others style him, his nephew, Peter de Rivaux,6 the Bishop showered profitable honours in abundance. To him was delivered for life the custody of the " Wardrobe ", which was the Treasury of the King's household, and he was later created also Treasurer of the national Exchequer. This post had previously been held by Walter Mauclerc, Bishop of Car? lisle,7 who, together with des Roches and de Burgh, had encouraged King Henry in the same year to found the London House of Con? verts.8 Peter further became the King's Chamberlain for London and a Justice of the Jewry, in addition to acting as a Sheriff of no less than twenty-one counties,9 Chief Justice of the Forests, Warden of the ports and coasts of England, Constable of a large number of royal castles, and keeper of escheats and wardships. In Ireland, too, 2 Dictionary of National Biography, vol. Hi. p. 45. 'A Patent Rolls, 1237, p. 47. 4 D.N.B., vol. li. p. 204. Foss, Judges of England, ii. p. 468. Chronicle of Roger of Wendover (Giles' translation), ii. p. 565. Matthew Paris is regarded as the author of this Chronicle. 6 D.N.B., vol. xlviii. p. 332. Foss, I.e., p. 454. His name also rendered de Rivallis, de Rievaulx, Orival. 7 D.N.B., vol. xiii. p. 79. Foss, I.e., p. 404. 8 For the History of the " Domus Conversorum " see my Jews of Medieval England, pp. 279-379. 9 Patent Rolls, 1232, p. 489.</page><page sequence="3">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III T43 he held similar high positions, including the wardenship over the Irish Jewry.10 This accumulation of State offices in the hands of Peter de Rivaux, says Professor Tout,11 remains absolutely unprecedented in English history. The domestic and national Treasuries were controlled by one man, who was thus able to effect extensive reforms in the national administration of finance.11* The Chronicler12 relates that " all his former councillors, bishops, earls, barons and other nobles Henry dis? missed abruptly and put confidence in none except the Bishop of Winchester and his son." As expressed by Professor Jacob, " the Court officials had triumphed over the baronial minister. The Ward? robe became solitary and supreme. Though de Rivaux appointed deputies to assist him, the unitary tendency is clear. . . . The ground? work of Henry's policy was to administer the country primarily through the primitive Court organism strengthened and made effici? ent by clerks independent of the great magnates and strictly depen? dent upon the royal will. . . ." 12a To assist him in his manifold duties, de Rivaux selected another royal favourite, Robert Passelewe.1'3 He had formerly served as an agent at the Papal Court of the notorious baron, Faukes de Breaute, who was an enemy of Hubert de Burgh. Passelewe was made Deputy Treasurer of the kingdom and Justice of the Jews, and en? joyed many honours from his royal master. Under the aegis of the Poitevin Bishop, the three ministers, Stephen de Segrave, Peter de Rivaux and Robert Passelewe, ruled the country. " Their word was law and their rule was anarchy ", as Green expresses it. Justice was bought and sold, the Jews under their charge were robbed and ill 10 Ibid., p. 494. See Trans., v. 229. The Jews of Ireland. 11 Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, i. p. 214-32. 1Ja In Transactions, Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, vol. x. pp. in sq. Miss M. H. Mills discusses in detail the effect of the changes introduced by de Rivaux in the control of the Exchequer. She makes no reference to any misrule of the Poitevins, and attributes their dismissal in 1234 to the barons again obtaining power from the King. 12 Roger of Wendover, I.e., p. 565. 12a Cambridge Medieval History, vi. p. 261. 13 D.N.B., vol. xliii. p. 444.</page><page sequence="4">144 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III treated, and the triumvirate misused the royal authority for the pur? pose of amassing riches for themselves by every method of cruelty and extortion. Their misrule soon aroused the anger of all classes. In the following year, the Bishops declared that they would excommuni? cate them for giving the King evil counsel, but finally contented themselves with pronouncing only a general censure against those who had turned the King's heart against his natural-born subjects. Robert Bacon,14 an influential priest, a relative of the more renow? ned philosopher and writer, Roger Bacon, in a witty speech, once asked the King : " What is most dangerous to sailors, or what frigh? tens them most? " "Those whose business is on the wide waters know best," replied the King. " Sire, I will tell you. Stones and rocks " (petrae et rupes), an allusion to the all-powerful Peter des Roches (de Rupibus). The rule of the Poitevins was now coming to a close, and the baronial party again assumed power for a time. Edmund Rich,1* later canonised as St. Edmund, became Archbishop of Canterbury on April 2nd, 1234, and seven days later he confronted King Henry with a threat of excommunication, voicing England's hatred of the royal ministers who were bringing the country into confusion by their misconduct. " They do not consider you in the light of a king," he declared in his righteous anger, " for you are more under their rule than they under yours.. . . They misapply and pervert alike justice and the law : . . . they do not fulfil their promises to anyone, they do not keep faith or their oaths nor abide by any written agree? ment. We therefore advise you in the name of God and man to correct these abuses by dismissing such evil advisers and to govern your kingdom with your own faithful and sworn subjects." The King accepted the counsel of the prelate, and forthwith ex? pelled the four ministers from office. He gave orders that they were to appear before him to answer the many charges against them and to render an account of their misdeeds, especially in the adminis? tration of his public and private funds. Upon learning of the sudden reversal in their fortunes, the favourites, who, as Matthew Paris 14 Ibid., vol. ii. p. 373. ir&gt; Ibid., vol. xvi. p. 405.</page><page sequence="5">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III T45 writes, " found their consciences plead guilty of all the charges and were in dread of the anger of the King ", fled away, fearful of their lives at the hands of their enemies. Bishop Peter and his son sought sanctuary in Winchester Cathedral and hid themselves, " withdraw? ing themselves entirely from the sight of men." The Justiciar de Segrave who had begun life as a priest, and then had become a soldier and later a judge, concealed himself in the monastery of St. Mary in Leicester and returned to his clerical duties, which, we are told, he had deserted long ago without the permission of his Bishop. The fourth of the courtiers, Passelewe, could not be found. Many thought he had gone to Rome, where he had previously lived for some time. But in fact he was lying covered up " like a hare " in a secret cellar at the New Temple in the Strand, feigning to be ill. Two months later, Archbishop Rich guaranteeing him protection, Peter de Rivaux was the first to present himself before King Henry at Westminster. He came in clerical robes, with head shorn and wearing a broad chaplet, and humblv implored mercy from his master who was sitting on the bench with the judges. The King spoke very harshly to Peter, calling him a traitor, and blamed him for all the disturbance in the realm. He finally sent him to the Tower of London to await his judgment. Now that he belonged to the Church, Peter claimed exemption from punishment, but it was noticed that, under his garments, he was dressed in a coat of mail, " no fit dress for a cleric observes Matthew Paris, the monk. After two days in the Tower he was allowed to return to his father at Winchester. The ex-Chief Justice also presented himself in the garb of a priest and was sternly commanded to render a full account of all he had done. The last of the three to appear was Passelewe, in a state of terror. De Segrave, to shield himself, had accused his fellow-rulers be fore the King of various acts of maladministration that had rendered their government odious to the nation, and the King sent them all into retirement. The story of their subsequent restoration to favour will be narrated later, but the part played by the Jewries of England in the misdeeds of the ministers now demands our attention. L</page><page sequence="6">I46 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III De Segrave, de Rivaux and Passelewe had been the Justices of the Jews,16 and therefore in close touch with the communities, supervis? ing their business affairs and exercising control over their lives in every way. The sudden removal of these instruments of the new royal policy from their high offices was therefore a matter of the deepest interest to the Jews of England. On May 30th, 1234,17 an order of the King directed the Jews of London no longer to obey Passelewe, who had previously, on May 2nd,18 received authority to regulate the affairs of the Jews of Winchester and elsewhere. Simi? larly, newly appointed Justices of the Jews were directed to report all matters direct to the King, and not to de Rivaux.19 In July of the same year,20 a decree was issued that in every city and county an official Inquiry on oath be held, and testimony be obtained both from men, religious and lay, who were enjoined to give evidence " without hatred, fear or love, concerning all loans, monies and other move ables, as well as injuries, gifts, taking of wines and other valuables, unlawful distraints or fines " carried out by the orders of the three guilty ministers, Bishop Peter evidently not being directly concerned. In the writ sent to the Sheriffs of Canterbury,21 it is expressly stated that the witnesses were to include the citizens and "our" Jews of the city, which form of words was probably repeated in the letters to other centres. August 15th was fixed for the Royal Commission to be held in London22 under the charge of Alexander de Swereford, the Treasurer of St. Paul's Cathedral, who was also a Baron of the Ex? chequer, Hugh Giff?rd, the newly appointed Constable of the Tower, and Gerard Bat, a Sheriff of the City.23 The leading Jews of London readily came forward and presented their indictment of the Justices, for they had suffered much at their hands. 16 See Gross, Papers of the Anglo-Jewish Exhibition, p. 176. As a rule, " the Justices were subject to the superior authority of the Treasurer and Chief Justice of the realm." In the present case these offices were united in the same persons. 17 Close Rolls, p. 438. 19 Ibid., p. 440. 21 Ibid., p. 583. 18 Ibid., p. 416. 20 Ibid., p. 581. 22 Ibid., p. 467. 23 Stow, Survey of London (ed. Kingsford), ii. p. 154. In 1239 Rat was elected Mayor,</page><page sequence="7">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF FIENRY III 147 In his lecture given before the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition in 1887 on " The- persecutions of the Jews in England," the late Mr. Walter Rye, an eminent Norfolk antiquarian, for the first time made known the existence of the document in the Public Record Office that had preserved the evidence of the London Jews at the public In? quiry.24 Mr. Rye gave a very brief account of the first part of their evidence, promising to print the whole manuscript later, which, however, was never done.2,1 Recently I read this interesting chapter of Anglo-Jewish history, which had been hidden away among a miscellaneous mass of legal records of the King's Bench,20 and con? sists of two long skins of vellum, one being written on both sides. In many places the parchment is torn and the ink faded, in parts it is much decayed at the edges, but Miss Sarah Cohen, M.A., has skil? fully transcribed the Latin text, and Mr. Hilary Jenkinson, of the Public Record Office, has kindly helped to solve various difficult readings. Here we have in full detail the sworn testimony of the Jews of London, as well as of two Christian Chirographers of the time, concerning the manner in which the three Justices of the Jewry had treated the Jews under their authority. In accordance with the sys? tem of concentrating all power in their hands, they had taken control of the Jewish Exchequer, as well as of every other financial source. They had extorted heavy bribes and valuable gifts of all kinds, both from individuals and from the community as a whole. They im? prisoned Jews to obtain ransom. They compelled them to reduce debts to their clients and to return pledges, in one case a manor in Essex. They defrauded them of their charters, some of which they publicly sold; they cheated the Exchequer in matters of tallage, in? creasing the assessment of taxes as they pleased and appropriating sums for themselves, and generally behaved in the most illegal man? ner. Their clerks and servants followed the evil example of their masters and demanded gifts of all kinds. The real villain of the story 24 Papers of the A.f.H. Exhibition, p. 154. 2r&gt; The City Librarian of Norwich, Mr. George Hay ward, kindly made a search in the bibliography and in the manuscript collection of Mr. Rye, in the possession of the local Public Libraries, but could find nothing concerning this Roll. 26 See note 1.</page><page sequence="8">i48 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III appears to be Robert Passelewe, the Judge and Deputy Treasurer, whose offences far exceeded those of his two colleagues. It is an illuminating side-light upon English as well as Jewish history that is afforded by this document, the original text of which, together with a translation, is appended to this paper. Eighteen London Jews were summoned by the Commission to reveal the iniquities of the royal ministers, among whom were some of the most prominent men of the community."7 The first to give evidence was Benedict Crespin,28 and he was followed by Jose Pres? byter (le Prestre),29 the second of the Arch-Presbyters.30 Then came Aaron, the son of Abraham,31 who later was deputy Arch-Presbyter with Elias le Eveske,32 Benedict Crespin's brother Jacob,33 three members of the Blund family, Aaron,34 Elias,35 and Samuel,36 Isaac of Southwark,37 Aaron the Chirographer,38 Abraham the son of 27 In addition to the eighteen witnesses, the following names of London Jews are given in the course of the evidence: Ursell brother of Benedict Crespin, Aaron who was hanged," Isaac son of Jose le Prestre, Manasser Gruinguard, Leo son of Isaac Blund of Milk Street, Margery sister of Aaron the Chirographer, Ermine sister of Benedict son of Pictavin, the wife of Jacob Crespin, the wife of Benedict son of Pictavin, Benedict le Eveske, Elias le Eveske. 28 For details of his activities, see Loewe, Starrs and Charters, ii. 90. 29 Stokes, Studies in Anglo-fewisJi History, p. 25. :iU Concerning the title Arch-Presbyter, see Jews of Medieval England, p. 137. ;u Loewe, ii. 62. ?&gt;2 Ibid., ii. 38. Ibid., ii. 35. 34 Ibid., ii. 68. Ibid., ii. 72. Brother of Aaron. ?36 Ibid., ii. 77. Son of Aaron. 37 Ibid., ii. 214. n8 Mentioned in Rigg, Plea Rolls, i. 102 (1244). In Tovcy's Anglia Judaica, p. 102, the following passage occurs: ". . . in the Plea Rolls of the same Year (18. H. Ill) we meet with several Complaints and Inquisitions concerning the Bribery and Cor? ruption of Peter de Rivallis, Stephen de Segrave and Robert de Passelew, Justices of the Jews: against whom Simon, Cirographarius Judeornm, petit Literas. The Event of which was, that Peter de Rivallis was depos'd from his Office and oblig'd to surrender totum Forestarium suum, or Justiceship of the Forest; and Robert de Passelew was also remov'd ..." This quotation cannot be confirmed from any printed text of the Plea Rolls. The Chirographer Simon is otherwise unknown, and may be intended for Aaron,</page><page sequence="9">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III I9 Muriel,39 and Benedict the son of Pictavin.40 Of the well-known le Eveskc (Cohen) family,41 Solomon, the youngest son, alone appeared before the tribunal. His father, Benedict, was too old to present himself, and his more noted brother, Elias, who in 1243 became the fourth Arch-Presbyter, succeeding Aaron of York,42 was ill at the time of the Inquiry. Solomon gave full details of the mis? deeds of Robert Passelewe and two of his clerks concerning the members of his family. Two other brothers, Jacob43 and Isaac le Eveske, were among the witnesses, but, like Jacob le Turk44 (so called as coming from Thouars in France), they declared that they had no knowledge of any bribes received by the judges, asserting that they gave nothing because they had nothing. Two men, Samuel of Hertford4" and Solomon of Kingston,46 com? plained of Passelewe having extorted money from them and other Jews for permission to live in places which were not official Jewish centres,47 and afterwards expelling them from their homes. All the seven leaders of the London community who represented the local Jewry later at the Worcester " Parliament" of the year 1241, were among the sufferers. They were the two Crespins, Aaron the son 39 Locvvc, ii. 116. 40 The only one of this name is a Chirographer of Lincoln. Rigg, i. 39, 44, 71. He may have removed to London. There is a better known Pictavin, son of Benedict, of London (Loewe ii. 45), or Bedford, who may be meant. 41 Loewe, ii. 38. Stokes, I.e., pp. 12-17, where the family history is given in full, and pp. 30-35, concerning Elias the Arch-Presbyter. 42 See Note 50, infra. 4:5 Jacob was Clerk of the Exchequer of the Jews and lived principally in Oxford. Details of his life are given in S. Cohen, The Oxford Jewry, Trans., xiii. 313. 44 There were also other Thouars Jews: Solomon, Moses, and Samuel, known as le Turk or Turyk or Tuarz or Tuace. Cf. IT. Gross, Gallia Jzidaica, p. 208. See J.M.E., p. 208. 45 Mentioned in a Cambridge Roll of 1233 (Stokes I.e., p. 146), and in Select Pleas, 87 (1275). 46 Solomon of Kingston-on-Thames is mentioned in Rigg, i. 64 (1244), with Aaron of the same place; sec also ibid., 90. In Close Rolls, 1255, p. 26, he is called " Jew of London." 47 A special royal licence was required for a Jew to reside in a town where there was no archa; cf. Gross, I.e., p. 189.</page><page sequence="10">i5o LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III of Abraham, three Blunds, and Elias le Eveskc.48 About the year 1246, three of these notables, Aaron the son of Abraham, Aaron Blund, and Benedict Crespin, were attached to the Court (qui curiam vestram sequuntur).^ Aaron of York, who had a home both in London and in his native city, is not mentioned, but it is probable that his evidence was given in a local Inquiry, the record of which has been lost, only the London report having survived.50 Not being content with levying heavy toll upon individual Jews and ill-treating them in many ways, the three Justices had demanded unlawful pay? ments from the London community, who seem to have kept a public fund from which to meet these and similar exactions. To Peter de Rivaux the community gave the sum of ^250 (equal to ?7,500 to? day), and still owed him a further ^118 which they had promised. Chief Justice de Segrave had accepted a bribe of ^64 16s. 8d. and Passelewe ^214, together with a number of gifts. Another French official, who at one time was a judge, named Peter Grimbaud,51 was given a sum of ^10 as well as other presents from individuals, and the servants of the Exchequer also took their share of the spoils. Assured of the royal protection that had failed them during the past two years under the domination of the Poitevin ministers, the London Jews spoke up without fear at the Inquiry, and their state? ments confirmed each other in many respects. Evidence was given by several of them of illegal conduct with reference to the King's archa;y'~ the official chest in which bonds for debts were preserved under the charge of four Chirographers, two Jewish and two Chris? tian, who kept the keys. This was a serious crime committed against the royal authority itself. Passelewe had ordered the London chest to be removed from the custody of the Chirographers and taken 48 Stokes, I.e., p. 86, and J.M.E., p. 74. 49 Shirley, Royal Letters of Henry III, ii. p. 46. 50 Beyond the writ addressed to the Sheriffs of Canterbury there is no mention of a Commission holding an Inquiry in any city except London. Concerning " Aaron of York," see J.M.E., pp. 127-173. 51 Foss, I.e., p. 358. He received Church livings and gifts from the King. Liberate Rolls, 1226, p. 6; 1228, p. 71. Patent Rolls, 1230, p. 328; 1233, p. 23. He was later active in the collection of the Worcester tallage of 1241. See Stokes, I.e., p. 88. 3- See Gross, I.e.</page><page sequence="11">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III to his house. Later it was deposited for a period of fifteen days or a month in the house of the Sheriff of London of the year 1233, Simon Fitz Mary,"3 himself an unscrupulous citizen who was dismissed from his post for fraudulent use of public funds after six months' tenure of office. A servant of Passelewe took away the keys from the Chirographers, opened the archa, and carried the bonds and char? ters to the market-place at West Cheap (now Cheapside), where they were publicly offered for sale, a most improper proceeding. The London Jewry were made to pay this man Simon to replace the un? sold bonds in their archa. In this connection it is interesting to note the evidence of the only non-Jews at the Inquiry, Robert of London, and John de Solar,54 who were the Christian Chirographers. They asserted that one of Passelewe's men, in the name of his master, demanded the archa from them together with its keys, and kept it for several weeks. They were then both dismissed from office, probably because they resisted this unlawful interference with their public duties, but, later, seeking to be reappointed, they gave gifts in the form of a barrel of wine and a heavy ring, but in vain, as two new Chirographers were elected in their places. Passelewe was further accused by Aaron the son of Abraham of accepting bribes from a certain Robert de Burnebury, and another example of receiving gifts from a Christian occurs in the evidence of Aaron Blund. A relative of the Earl of Norfolk named William le Bigod '5 owed money to three Jews. He gave a ring and other goods to Passelewe who thereupon forced his creditors to reduce their claims to a much smaller amount. As has already been indicated, of the three Justices of the Jews, Passelewe was by far the most guilty. He alone is accused of having been in the habit of committing his Jewish victims to prison in order to obtain money from them. He once treated the chief representa Sec Stow, I.e. Newcouit, Rcpertoritim of St. Paul's, i. p. 464. Besant, Medieval London, ii. p. 43. In 1234 he became castos camerarie Angliae {Close Rolls, p. 386). He lived in a house in the Jewry next to Aaron son of Abraham. Charter Rolls, 1261, p. 38. 54 A citizen of Bordeaux. Patent Rolls, 1229, p. 234. 55 Dugdale's Baronage, i. p. 132.</page><page sequence="12">152 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY ill tive of English Jewry, Jose the Arch-Presbyter, in this manner, to? gether with his son Isaac, and they had to pay Passelewe fifty marks in order to secure their freedom. Later, Jose was again arrested, taken to Gloucester where he was threatened with incarceration in Corfe Castle, the ruins of which still frown on the traveller going to Swanage, unless he handed Passelewe a further sixty marks. Isaac of Southwark was lodged in the Tower of London, of which the Chief Justice, de Segrave, was the Constable, and was forced to sur? render a pledge upon a house. There he may have met Isaac the son of Solomon, a Norwich Jew, who for some unrecorded reason was in the prison at the same time/'6 Benedict the son of Pictavin, to? gether with his wife and his sister Ermine, were also shut up in the same stronghold on the Thames and paid a heavy fine to their oppres? sors before they were set free. Elias le Eveske surrendered certain pledges after a term of imprisonment, and a second stay in the Tower led to a Starr being written by him, under compulsion of Robert, to reduce a debt which was due from the heirs of an estate of which Passelewe was a trustee.57 During the period of their being in power, two tallagcs were ordered to be raised by the Treasurers. The first in 1233 amounted to 10,000 marks (in modern value, over ^200,000) to be paid by the Jewries within six years. '8 The signatories to this decree were Bishop Peter of Winchester and de Segrave. There are forty securities named who guaranteed the payment of this tallage, Aaron of York not being among them. For rendering assistance to the London community in collecting the tax, as the report of the evidence phrases it, Passelewe received a personal gift of 100 marks. The second levy was for the sum of ^500.59 The King was due to visit Northampton in February, 1234, an&lt;^ sent word to his Deputy Treasurer that he urgently required the sum of ^1,000, which was to be given to him :,t5 Close Rotts, 12^1, p. -5(12. :&gt;7 See note 63, p. 154. :'8 Patent Rolls, t?.^, pp. 12. 187. Li/crate Rolls, 12^, p. 244. Cross, /.r.. p. 195. In 1236 the Justices of the Jews were directed to collect the arrears of this tallage, no Jew to escape. (Close Rolls, p. 404.) *'9 Close Rolls, 1234, p. 551.</page><page sequence="13">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III on his arrival. If the total amount was not to be found in the Trea? sury, the balance was to be collected immediately by all possible means. Accordingly, de Rivaux and Passelewe assessed the sum of ^500 upon the London Jews as their part of the deficit in the royal Exchequer. For their own gain, however, the ministers raised the tallage to ^700, which sum was to be paid into the private account of de Rivaux, the profit of the Treasurers on the transaction to be ^200. As a Justice of the Jews as well as Deputy Treasurer, Passel? ewe busied himself personally in fixing the assessment both upon the community and upon individual Jews. In order to lighten the bur? den of their taxes he secretly took bribes from the wealthiest contri? butors. Thus, from Aaron the son of Abraham, Aaron Blund, Elias le Eveske, Elias Blund and his friend, Leo Blund of Milk Street,60 he received sums of money, jewels, silver cups and dishes. He borrowed loans which were not repaid. He further levied a fine of four gold pounds (equal to ^1,200) upon Aaron the son of Abraham, who had not arrived in time to meet him at Northampton. One of the Jews was compelled to bear the cost of Passelewe's stay at Northampton, and the London community induced him by bribery not to allow their quota of the tallage to exceed that of the York Jewry. Peter Grimbaud and some of Passelewe's staff were also paid to intercede with their master and win his favour. The Jews whose accusations against their Justices are recorded were in nearly all cases the rich business men of the community; their names occur again and again in the archives of the day, in the Plea Rolls, Patent Rolls, the Shetaroth, and in other documents, and the gifts extorted from them, other than money, of which they gave large sums, reveal the nature of their wealth and shed light upon the social and economic life of the Jews of the period. Among the presents accepted by the Justices and their retainers there are gold buckles, silver cups and bowls, rings of gold and other metal, silver spoons, dishes, a knife, silver sj)urs, an emerald and other jewels, 60 Rigg&gt; i- &amp;3&gt; 86, Ny&gt; 128. The description sotins, friend or associate, indicates that he was not a member of Aaron Blund's family, but a son of Isaac Blund, hence he is called Leo, son of Isaac. He was a deputy at the Worcester " Parliament."</page><page sequence="14">154 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III girdles decorated with silver, carved cameos, one of which Passelewe presented to King Henry himself, a circlet to be worn by the King, a barrel of wine and a set of writing implements called a scriptoria. Many of these articles had, no doubt, been received in pledge in return for loans,61 and passed into the possession of the ministers and their adherents to satisfy their rapacity. It is a sad story of oppression of a defenceless community that I have set before you from the ancient record, and the revelation of these crimes must have confirmed the King in the decision at which he had arrived, under pressure from the Archbishop and the barons, to dismiss the offenders from his service. They lost their high posi? tions, their castles and their estates and retired into obscurity. The King became the supreme ruler of the land. The post of Chief Justice that had been so disgraced by Stephen de Segrave was not filled for some twenty-four years. The office of Treasurer was given to Hugh de Pateshull,62 Bishop of Chester, of whom Matthew Paris says: " He passed his life in a praiseworthy manner ". Sir Hugh de Bath63 (dis? missed after two years), Sir William le Breton and Elias de Sunninge were appointed Justices of the Jews. This new form of personal government did not, however, last long. Henry was too incapable of acting for himself. He could not exist without favourites by whose counsel he wished to be guided. Within two years he forgave them all. Peter des Roches returned to his See of Winchester, but henceforth interfered little in State affairs. Peter de Rivaux, de Segrave and Passelewe were again summoned to Court, and once more basked in the sunshine of the royal favour, though they were not restored to all their former honours. In 1236 a decree of the King remitted to Peter de Rivaux the royal anger and granted him protection.64 He had temporary charge of the Great Seal, was created a baron of the Exchequer, and two Church livings 61 Cf. my paper on " The Inventory of the Condemned Jews "?Miscellanies, ii. p. 56. 62 Patent Rolls, 1234, p. 53. Foss, I.e., p. 437. 63 D.N.B., vol. iii. p. 402. Foss, I.e., p. 223. Loewc, i. 94; ii. 233. Close Rolls, 1234, p. 569. 64 Patent Rolls, 1236, p. 145.</page><page sequence="15">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 155 and numerous gifts were conferred upon him. In 1257 he was restored to his offices of Treasurer and Keeper of the Wardrobe and acted as a royal ambassador to France,65 whilst in the following year he was a witness to a declaration of the King consenting to a project of reform of the government, on the demand of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the rebellious nobles.66 De Segrave paid 1,000 marks to be reconciled. He was reappointed to his office at the Tower of London,67 and was made a judge at Chester.68 He became a trusted friend of the King, but did not hold office long, for he resolved to end his days as he had begun, as a priest, dying as a Canon at the Augustinian Abbey of Leicester, where he had taken refuge in the days of adversity. Passelewe also paid a heavy fine before being pardoned, and a little later was made Justice of the Forests south of the Trent.69 In the discharge of this office he rendered himself most unpopular in his zeal for the Crown. The King, however, was so pleased with his success in raising money for him, who was in a continual state of bankruptcy, that he showed his gratitude by giving him ecclesiastical posts as Prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral and of Salisbury Cathe? dral.70 He was further installed as Archdeacon of Lewes,71 and, at the suggestion of the local clergy who sought to curry favour with the King, was selected by Henry to be Bishop of Chichester. Some of the bishops, however, opposed this choice, and Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, was instructed to submit Passelewe to an examina? tion as to his fitness to occupy so exalted an office in the Church. He failed to answer the exceedingly hard questions which Grosseteste put to him, and Boniface, the Archbishop of Canterbury, though a relative of Queen Eleanor's, rejected him as ignorant and declared the elec? tion void.72 The King in his wrath appealed to the Pope to support him, but his efforts were fruitless. Subsequently, Passelewe seems to have lost the favour of his master and his lay appointments were *r&gt; Ibid., 1237, p. 186. 67 Close Rolls, 1231, p. 394. 69 Patent Rolls, 1245, p. 462. 71 Ibid., 1244, p. 421. C6 Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 381. 68 Ibid., 1237, p. 538. 70 Ibid., 1242, pp. 298, 301. 72 Matthew Paris, ii. p. 41.</page><page sequence="16">I56 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY HI taken from him. He therefore determined to give up his service of the Court and to devote himself to spiritual things. In 1249 he was ordained priest by the Bishop of Ely and died in the odour of sanctity three years later. Matthew Paris sums up his career in a few striking words. " This Robert, though a clerk and a prelate, did not hesitate in his adherence to the king to impoverish many people in order to fatten his sovereign, but his deeds follow him." 73 And so ends a chapter in early Anglo-Jewish history of which nothing would have been known but for the discovery of the record of evidence preserved by the King's law officials. The weak govern? ment of King Henry made the persecution of Jewry possible, and allowed his ministers to discredit their high offices in a manner for which there is no parallel in English history. 7? Ibid., p. 495. ADDENDUM In the year 1286, the trial took place of two other Justices of the Jews, who were charged with malpractices, and, being found guilty, were dismissed from office.1 1 The full details of this trial were first made known in vol. 55 of the Publica? tions of the Seiden Society, 1936. See Maclox, History of the Exchequer, i. 254, 255, where the following is recorded: '* In the reign of King Edward I, the matter of a certain Falsity committed in the Judaism was, at the Instance of the Queen's Attorneys, brought before the Treasurer and Barons to be examined and rcctifyed. They went and sat in the Exchequer of the Jews. And finding that Robert de Lud ham, a Justice of the Jews had committed the Falsity, they put him out of his office, and committed him to prison. At the same time, Hamond Hauteyn, another Justice of the Jews was called to an Account by the Treasurer and the Barons. And being convicted before them of several Misdemeaners, he was by them sus? pended from his office." See also op. cit. iii. 321, 322. Foss, The Judges of England, iii. p. 102, in a note upon the life of Hauteyn, repeats the above, but makes no mention of de Ludham in his list of Judges of the period.</page><page sequence="17">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III I57 H?mo Hauteyn2 and Robert de Ludham3 had ruled the Jewry for fourteen years since the beginning of the reign of Edward I. Three years before his trial Hauteyn had presided over a special Commission to investigate charges made against certain Jews suspected of selling to foreign merchants plate made of clippings or of silvered tin; and several of them were punished.4 Reports having been spread of the Justices of the Jews having perverted justice, they were summoned before the Treasurer, John de Kirkby," who was also Bishop of Ely, together with the Chief Justices, Ralph de Hengham6 and Thomas de Weyland,7 and other Barons of the Exchequer, to answer serious charges of corruption. Hauteyn alone appeared, for De Ludham was very ill, and he was examined as he lay in bed. In the first place, the two judges were accused of neglecting to keep proper accounts of the revenue of the Treasury, and thus de? frauding the royal Exchequer. It was further alleged that they removed to their own homes, and even to the houses of Jewish credi? tors, official documents and bonds that should have been stored at Westminster. For these offences they were suspended from office. Shortly afterwards, the Earl of Cornwall, the Regent, brought to the Treasurer and his colleagues a writ he had received from the King who was then in France, authorising a fuller inquiry to be made into the misconduct of the Justices. There were two Jews concerned in the new charges. Jose Batecok8 appeared to be a friend of the accused. It was said that he had defrauded two merchants by a trick 2 Judge, and Justice of the Jews. See note i, and Dr. C. Gross, Jewish Exchequer, p. 217. 3 As above. These Justices witnessed a deed of gift by Aaron son of Vivcs to the London community of a stone house in C;itte Street to be made into a Syna? gogue. (Charter Rolls, 1281, p. 253.) 4 Patent Rolls, 1283, p. 56. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xxxi. p. 204. Foss, I.e., p. tto. 6 D.N.B., vol. xxv. p. 410. He was Chief Justice of the King's Bench. Foss, I.e., p. 261. 7 D.N.B., vol. ix. p. 391. He was Chief Justice of Common Pleas. Both Heng ham and Weyland were removed from office for corruption in 1289. See State Trials of Edward 1, 1289-1293, by Tout and Johnstone, Royal Historical Society, 1906, and Foss, I.e., p. 170. 8 This man is not mentioned in the records of the time, as far as I have been able to ascertain. There are two others of the name of Batecok, Abraham and Dieye.</page><page sequence="18">158 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III and then had used violence (vi armatd) in robbing them of the sum of ^335. To Hauteyn and de Ludham, Jose admitted that he had taken ^140 from the merchants, and of this money he paid ^20 to the judges, who had accepted this bribe. It being suspected that all had not yet been ascertained of the misdeeds of the corrupt judges, a full scrutiny was ordered to be made of all bonds received by the Justices during the whole period of their being in charge of the Scaccarium ]udeorum* It was then discovered that they had been accessory to the crime of forging an important charter as well as of removing it from the Exchequer. The King had pardoned a debt of ^250 owing by the Abbot of Stratford to a prominent London Jew, Master Elias the son of Master Moses.10 Elias was a Master of the Jewish Law, and his brother Hagin was the Arch-Presbyter11 of the time. A marked intimacy existed between the Jewish moneylender and the Justices who frequently visited him at his house in Milk Street, Cheapside,12 taking with them official documents. The text of the Abbot's bond had been considerably altered by a clerk of the Justices, acting under the instructions of his masters, and the effect of this tampering with the original charter was that the Jewish creditor had received the sum of ^20 more than was due to him. The Justices were condemned to pay a fine of ^1,000, and were dismissed from the royal service. 9 Sec Gross, I.e., p. 75; Jenkinson, Transactions, viii., and Introduction to vol. iii. of the Plea Rolls. Also Cramer, American Historical Review, vol. xlv. No. 2, January 1940. 10 See my Jews of Medieval England, p. 157. Stokes, Studies, p. 7. 11 Cf. J.M.E., p. 137. 12 See note 10, Jacobs, London Jewry, p. 24.</page><page sequence="19">london jewry and ministers of henry iii J59 APPENDIX Public Record Office, K.B. 26, No. 115 b. (Curia Regis 18-19 III), 1234. Membrane 14. London. Benedictus Crespin primo iuratus dicit quod manerium de Bocsted' quod fuit aliquando Roberti filii Philipi fuit vadium suum et Aron' filius Abraham. Et Idem Robertus debuit eis super terras illas et super alias terras suas dcccc . . m. Et Willelmus de (Plessitis?) per vim et oppressionem Petri de RivalP fecit eos remittere debitum illud usque ad sexcentas marcas Waltero filio eiusdem Roberti qui finem fecit cum eis. Et istud factum est occasione maritagii fil(iae) ipsius Willelmi fil(io) ... Et Walterus postea fecit . . . illud per manerium de Bocsted' quod dedit predicto Willelmo ad vocem suam. Et ipse Willelmus postea distrinxit eosdem Benedictum et Aron ad ponen dum manerium illud extra vadium. Et hoc fecerunt propter metum ipsius Petri. Item dicit quod dedit Petro de RivalP unam zonam bombacinam barratam argento precii xxxii. s. Item eidem dedit fermaculum aureum precii ii. m. Item eidem unam petram que vocatur Camae wain que fuit talliata una ... dedit eodem unum fermaculum aureum ponderis iiij. solidis et valuit xliijs. Item ipse cum aliis Iudeis (in) communi C. lib' semel. Item dicit quod dedit Stephano de Segrave j zonam de seriis barratam argento precii ii. marcarum et dimidie et predicta j ferma? culum aurei ex parte Ursell' fratris sui precii iij. marcarum et dimidie. Item dicit quod dedit Roberto Passelewe unam Camahyw' quern ipse postea dedit Domino Regi. Et postea unam zonam precii xliij. d. et unam Cipham precii xx. solidorum. Item habuerit de Catallis</page><page sequence="20">l6o LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III Aaron Iudei suspensi j Camehew et unam emesradam et unam zonam precii ij. marcarum et catalla qua debuerunt esse domino Regi . . . aliter, etc. Item dicit quod predictus Robertus quando Iudei non tenuerunt ei quandam promissionem ei factam deferri fecit arche Iudeorum cum Cartis et Cirographis Iudeorum usque ad domum suam et tarn detinuit per unam noctem donee finem fecerunt cum eo per C. solidos et constanter si esset apporta quam diu ibi fuit dicit quod nescit. Et postea delata fuit ad domum Simon ftT Marie et ibi detenta fuit per xv dies uel per j mensem sed nescit uter. Et ibi aperta fuit per Radul phum Destin clericum ipsius Roberti etc. Item quod fermia cum Cirographis et cartis delata fuerunt apud Westm' in saccis. Et postea reposita fuerunt. Et dicit quod pedes quorumdam Cirographorum exposita fuerunt venalia apud Weschep' per Garciones ipsius Roberti. Item dicit quod dedit Petro Grimbaut j anulum precii xx solidorum. Iosceus le prestre iuratus dicit quod Robertus Passelewe accusauit eum versus Petrum de RivalF imponens ei quod fuit Thesaurarius Domini Carl' et Huberti de Burgo et fecit eum adducere apud Glouc' et minatus fuit ei quod faceret eum adducere usque ad Castrum de Corf donee finem fecit per lx. marcas. Et unde reddidit L. marcas Richardo camerario ipsius Roberti. Et Isaac filius eins inde reddidit x. marcas eiclem Roberti apud Windesor. Item dedit1 ei unam Gar landam quam petiit ad opus Domini Regi apud Theokesbur' precii viij. marcarum et dimidie. Item dicit quod occasione terre quam Radulphus de peshoc uendidit Ricardo Reing' et que fuit vadium suum et in manu sua quia uendicioni ilia prebuit assensum et quia ipse Robertus terram illam non habuit cepit ipse ipsum Iosceum et filium suum et fecit eos incarcerari donee finem fecit cum eo per L. marcas. Item dicit quod extorsit ab eo in Iocalibus Anulis et ferma culis et aliis rebus usque ad valorem xxx. marcarum. Item cepit ab eo x. marcas per sic quod esset ei auxilians de auxilio habendo de Iudeis pro redemptionibus quas idem Iosceus ei dederat. Item dedit ei v. marcas nd hospitium domini Regis acquietandum quando comedit cum eo. 1 Deleted and tradidit written over it.</page><page sequence="21">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III l6l Item dicit quod dedit Petro de RivalP unum Camehew et dicit quod appreciatus fuit ad xl. marcas. Item dicit quod dedit Sim' clerico xx. solidos. Dicit quod nichil dedit Stephano de Segrave nisi unum anulum precii duarum marcarum et dimidie. De area dicit et concordat cum Benedicto per omnia preterquam quod dicit quod apperta fuit ad domum ipsius Roberti et. . . fuerunt Scrinia cum Cirographis et cards delata apud Westm' et per sic quod deferri posset ubi esse debuit et dedit x. marcas et in his dis cordat cum precendenti sed dicit quod connumerati sunt in magna summa. Aaron filius Abraham iuratus in omnibus concordat cum Bene? dicto Crespin de debito remisso Waltero filio Roberti per vim Petri de RivalP et de denariis et aliis omnibus. Item dicit quod nichil dedit Petro de Rivall' nec Stephano de Segrave nisi in communi cum aliis. Dicit cum quod Robertus Passel? ewe minatus fuit ei et pro habenda gracia ipsius dedit ei Dimidiam marce auri quam emit pro xl. solidis. Item dicit quia non repositum in arcam quoddam Cirographum confactum inter ipsum et Radul j)hum Moryn super quodam debito eodem die suum Cirographum confactum fuit finem fecit cum eo in denariis per xl. solidos et illos ei soluit. Item ei dedit propter alias occasiones iiij. libras. Item dicit quod idem Robertus cepit de Roberto de Burnebir' x.m. per sie quod distringeret eum ad concedendum eidem Roberto terminum de debito xxx marcarum. Ita quod solueret quolibet anno v.m. donec debitum persolueretur. Item dedit eidem ne aecresceret super eum summam tallagii de Norht' iij. m. et dimidie. Item dicit quod cepit de eo et Aaron Blund' et Elia Episcopi duas Ciphas et unam Cuppam precii vj. marcarum et viij. solidorum ne talliaret eos plus quam prius talliati fuerunt. Item de eodem apud Norht' quia non venit facta tempestine apud Norht' sicut venire debet cepit iiij. libras in auro et inde arreragium . . . communem (?). Item dicit quod dedit uoluntarie in Iocalibus ad valorem v. marc? arum scilicet ad quemdamlibet festum unum Iocale precii j marce. M</page><page sequence="22">162 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III De area uero concordat in omnibus cum predicto Iosceo. Robertus de Lond' et Iohannes de Solar' Clerici Cirographarii Christiani iurati dicunt quod Sim' Clericus Roberti passelewe venit ad eos ex parte Roberti domini sui et precepit eis ex parte Domini sui quod accederent cum eo ad arcam ubi carte et Cirographa reposita fuerunt et ita fecerunt et fecit eas adduci ad domum Domini sui et abstulit ab eis claues et ita recessit sed nesciunt quid inde fecit. Et dicunt quod detinuit claues per tres septimanas semel et . . . per aliud tempus etc. uel quatuor septimanas . . . inter pascha et pente costen ... et plures et detinuerunt per xv. dies aliquando et amplius et fecerunt quicquid uoluerunt. Sed . . . nihil . . . exigebat de eodem Iohanne Cirographario unum dolium vini pro restituendi ei officium suum et . . . comisit officium suum cuidam magistro Galfrido le Vilein et magistro Alexandra de Lond'. Et ipsi dederunt . . . pro officio illo bona etc. scilicet unum . . . unum anulum grassum etc. precii xl. s. sed statim amoti. . . . Iacobus Crespin iuratus dicit quod cum Robertus de Rupella finem fecisset cum ipso et Benedicto fratre suo per Ducentas marcas de quodam debito Ita quod in quolibet anno inde soluere deberet xij. libras donee debitum illud persolueretur. Petrus de RivalP per coac tionem fecit illos remittere debitum illud usque ad L.x. libras et ad reddendum inde centum solidos per annum donee etc. Et hie fecit ad instanciam uxori Willelmi filii Elie sed dicit quod nullum dena rium recepit de predicto Roberto de Rupell' quando . . . predicta occasione. . . . Robertus quod cum quidam Iohannes de Keu deberet eidem Iacobo et Manassero Gruinguard Iudeo quoddam debitum . . . fecerat cum eodem Roberto per xl. solidos ne mineret debitum illud et per sic quod permitteret eos conuenire cum . . . Item quando cum quidam Petrus Branche deberet uxori sue ij. marcas super vadium Idem Robertus fecit eum reddere vadia recepta pro eodem starro reddendi debitum illud et nichil . . . fecit. . . . semel dedit ei j annulum aureum precii j marce. Item dicit quod uxor sua misit ei de dimidia . . . . . . Item alia vice dedit ei xx. coclearea precii xx. solidorum. Item dedit xx. solidos ne mineret debitum ... De donis a . . . nichil nec de</page><page sequence="23">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 163 terris et tenementis que vadia eorum nichil. De area conuenit aliis precentibus. Item dicit quod dedit Petro Grimbaud j annulum precii dimidie marce. Item dicit quod dedit Sim' duos anulos precii dimidie marce. Item . . . dicunt quod Galfridus le Vilein dedit Sim' j annulum precii xl. solidorum pro Cirographis reponendis in arcam preter . . . quod recepitur a Iudeis predicti occasione. Membrane 13. (Top half missing.) Adhuc de London. De S. de Segrave et Petro de RivalP nichil nisi in graciam. Samuel' filius Aaron' iuratus dicit quod cum quidem Robertus de fraxineto deberet ei x. libras de catallis extra lucro de I anno et dimidia Idem Robertus passelewe fecit eum remittere debitum illud usque ad xx. solidos Et de illis xx. solidis habuit idem Robertus passelewe x. solidos et dicit quod ipse nichil amplius in bonis. De aliis capitulis nichil. Aliis nichil dedit nec remisit. Elia Blundus iuratus dicit quod nichil dedit S. de Segrave nec Petro de RivalP. De Roberto passelewe dicit quod cum Walterus de Greiert de Ponte Lond' deberet ei xxiiij. libras per duas dicas ipse Robertus et Simon clericus suus distrinxerunt eum ad remittendum debitum illud usque ad x. libras reddendas ad duas annos et fecerunt eum reddere unam de talliis suis. Et dicit quod Simon tune abstulit ab eo dimidiam marce occasione predicta. Et dicit quod bene credit quod Robertus passelewe habuit unum dolium vini predicta occasione. Item dicit quod idem Simon habuit aliam dimidiam marce ab eo et inposuit ei quod tantum ei promisit cum reuera nichil ei deberet. Item dicit quod idem dimidiam marce de Leone Blundo predicta ratione et dicit quod ipsi dederunt illam marcam in graciam. Item dicit quod</page><page sequence="24">164 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III ipse et Leo Blundus socius suus dederunt per vim Roberti passelewe viij. marcas per sic quod non super oneraret eos de tallagio. Item dicit quod ipsi duo dederunt eidem Roberti unam cuppam argentii precii xl. sol. per sic quod non faceret videri Cirographa sua ne amitterentur. De Petro Grimbaut dicit quod ipse et Leo socius suus dederunt eidem Petro ii. marcas per sic quod intercederet pro eisdem erga predictum Robertum passelewe. De aliis capitulis nichil. Isaac de Suwerc' iuratus dicit. De Roberto passelewe dicit quod cum quidam Elia filius Godard deberet ei quoddam debitum x. marcarum per cartas . . . quandam dorn um et unam . . . xliiij. solidorum de catallo et residuum de lucro et Idem Elia uendidisset Iohanni de (Su)werc domum illam que fuit vadium suum. Idem Robertus ad procurationem ipsius Iohannis extorsit ab eo (domum) illam et illam frangi fecit et fecit eum incar cerari apud Turrim donee reddidit illam ei et cum se . . . esset tradidit illam predicto Iohanni. De aliis capitulis et personis nichil. Aaron Cirographarius iuratus dicit quod cum Helco faucillun deberet ei et Benedicto Crespin et quibus(dam? aliis?) Iudeis viii. marcas de catallis extra lucro circiter xvj. annorum ad instanciam Petri de RivalP coacti fuerunt. . . Iudeorum ad remittendum debitum illud usque ad xxx. libras. Item dicit quod Robertus passelewe habuit de margeria sorore sua dimidiam marce de fine suo pro respectu habendo de (talla)gio. Item dicit quod margeria predicta dedit Sim' clerico Roberti passelewe iiij. solidos predicta occasione. De aliis Capitulis et aliis personis nichil. Samuel de Hertteford iuratus dicit quod Robertus Passelewe extor? sit ab eo unam marcam per sic quod p(ermitteret) manere apud Hert? ford in dominico domini Regis ubi fuit per x. septimanis et postea quia uoluit habere de suo . . . per breue suum quod inde amoueretur sed nullum finem postea fecit cum eo quia nichil habuit quod ei d(emanderet ?).</page><page sequence="25">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 165 De aliis personis et Capitulis nichil. Salomon de Kingestun iuratus dicit quod Robertus passelewe cepit ab eo et sociis suis Iudeis xl. (m.) per sic quod manere possent apud Kingestun. Et quando denarii illi ei soluti fuerunt et quando ibi (manerent) v. septimanas fecit eos inde amoueri. De aliis nichil. Iacobus de Warewic' et Iacobus le Eueske et Isaac le Euescke et Iacobus le Turyk iurati dicunt... dederunt nec Stephano nec petro nec Roberto sed reuera Iacobus de Warewic' dicit quod cum quedam . . . arnica Sim' clerici deberet ei vj. libras et quas ei reddere debuit in continenti sine termino .. . tallias suas quas habuit in Area Domini Regis et illas tradidit Iosceo le Prestre et . . . respectum dare et ter minos dare usque ad septem annos. Alii dicunt quod nichil dederunt quia nichil habent. De aliis Capi? tulis nichil. Abraham filius muriell' iuratus dicit quod cum quidam Willelmus filius Roberti canonici sancti pauli deberet ei. . . super vadium scilicet Cuppis et Cifis argenti et Cocleareis qui quidem vadia deposita fuer? unt penes ipsum . . . penes Eliam le Eueske Idem Robertus passelewe distrinxit ipsum Eliam ad tradendum ei vadium. Ita quod ipse Abra? ham nec vadia habet nec debitum. Item dicit quod cum Robertus de Burnebir' ei deberet vj. libras de debito distrinxit eum et dicit Robertum ad (remittendum?) debi? tum illud usque ad 1. solidos. Item dicit quod habuit de eo de dono in Iocalibus usque ad duas marcas. De area concordat cum aliis et quod pedes Cirographiorum expositi fuerunt vcnales. Dc Capitulis aliis et (personis ne) seit. Membrane 14^ Aaron Blundus Iudeus iuratus dicit quod nichil dedit S. de Segrave nec Petro de Rivall' per c(oactionem) nec in graciam etc. Item ipse et Elias le Eueske et Aaron filius Abraham dederunt Roberto passelewe pro tallagio suo de (Iudeis) Norht' amensurando</page><page sequence="26">166 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III xl. s. Et inde quilibet ipsorum talliatus fuit ad xxiiij. libras coram Hugone de Bathon' et predicto Roberto ipse Robertus fecit amen surari ad xx. libras sine predicto Hugone et per se. Item dicit quod quilibet eorum separatim et per se pro amensurando tallagio ad xviij. libras quod prius amensuratus . . . fuit ad xx. libras ita quod ipse Aaron dedit xl. solidos pro secunda amensuratione per se et illos red diderit per manum Crespin. Item illi tres prenominati dederunt Roberto passelewe quinque marcas ita amensurati fuerunt (ad) xviij. libras per sic quod non ponerentur ad xxiiij. libras factum sicut prius fuerit. Item dicit quod acomodauit predicto Roberto xxiiij. solidos ad feuum emendum quos nondum ei reddidit. Item dicit quod ipse et alii predicti dederunt . . . unam cuppam et duas Ciphas argenteos precii iiij. librarum et viij. solidorum per sic quod debita eorum non magis regularentur quam aliorum et per sic quod Cirographa ipsorum non inspicerentur. Item dicit quod dedit ei apud Norht' pro gracia sua voluntarie (?) habenda j fermaculum aureum precii xxij. solidorum. Item dicit quod . . . dedit plures anulos quorum precium supra . . . ipse cum aliis. Item dedit ei x. solidos ad hospitium suum apud Norht' per manum cuiusdam Willelmi le marescall'. Item de donis captis a Christianis dicit quod ipse Robertus cepit de Willelmo de Bigod unum anulum cum quadam bona precii xl. solidorum et fecit ipsum remittere eidem Willelmo debitum xij. libra rum et x. solidorum scilicet ei Leon' filio Isaac et Elie Blundo. De area et Cirographis concordat cum aliis. De terris et tenementis nichil seit. Item dicit quod dedit Sim' Clerico j zonam precii dimidie marce. Item ipsi Elia et Aaron dederunt eidem v. marcas pro Cirographis suis reponendis in arcam. Item dicit quod ipse et alii predicti dederunt Petro Grimbaut iij. marcas per sic quod intercederet pro eis ad Dominum Robertum passelewe. Benedictus filius Pictavens' iuratus dicit quod nichil unquam dedit S. de Segrave nec Petro de RivalP nisi gracia nec eo . . . nec debitum aliquod remisit pro eis nec per eos.</page><page sequence="27">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 167 Idem dicit quod nichil unquam gracia dedit Roberto Passelewe sed dicit quod cum Iohannes de Caudres deberet ei xlij. libras praeter usuras idem Robertus fecit eum remittere debitum illud usque ad xiiij. libras et dimidiam marce. Item dicit quod idem Robertus passel? ewe imposuit Ermine sorori sue quod ipsa simul uxore Iacobi Crespin debuit fecisse cir(ographum) cum quodam mercatore transmarino de xxx. solidis. Et ideo cepit ipsum Benedictum et uxorem et sororem et eos imprisonauit apud Turrim London' donee finem fecit per vj. marcas in denariis et xx. obo(li) de mus' precii xxv. solidorum et x. denariorum. Item dedit pro habenda libera prisona xx. solidos. Sicut quesitus si aliquid dedit ad lib . . . Domini Regis et aliorum dicit quod sit in graciam cum aliis quia ipse et alii aquietauerunt omnia hospitia sua que tenuit (?). De archa concordat cum aliis et dicit quod predictus Sim' habuit omnes claues de area et fecit quicquid uoluerit et nescit quid ei relic turn est in area de Cirographis uel aliis quia idem Sim' fecit quicquid uoluit. De terris et tenementis nichil seit nec de aliis. Petro Grimbaut nichil dedit nec Sim' clerico nisi unam scriptoriam ad valorem dimidie marce. Item dicit (nichil) dedit Radulpho Dastin. Item dicit quod Idem Robertus passelewe fecit eum dare Baalun seruienti suo . . . communi de uilla Lond' ij. marcas et dimidiam eo quod idem Baalun fecit se cantatorem suum. Salom' le Eueske iuratus dicit quod nichil unquam dedit S. de Segrave nec petro de Rivall' nec debitum remisit nec aliud fecit pro eis. Idem dicit quod dedit Roberto passelewe quedam calcaria argenti precii ij. marcarum pro habendo auxilio et gracia sua. De aliis capitulis nichil. De Cirographis et Archa concordat cum aliis. Item dicit quod dedit Radulpho Dastin clerico dimidiam marce quia uoluit impedire quendam finem per sic quod ilium non . . . Item dicit quod dedit Sim' clerico unum cultellum precii dimidie marce. Idem dicit quod pater suus debilis est et quod Elias le Eueske</page><page sequence="28">l68 london jewry and ministers of henry iii frater suus infirmus est ita quod venire non possunt et ipsi iniunxe runt ei quod dicit et respondeat pro eis. Et dicit super sacramentum suum quod S. de Segrave et Petrus de (Rivaliis) nichil ceperunt. . . .... Item dicit quod Robertus Passelewe cepit de Benedicto le Eueske de Lond' patre (suo) . . . per sic quod permitteret stare quan dem finem qui facta fuit coram Huberto de Burgo quondam Iustici ario. De aliis nichil seit quantum ad patrem suum pertinet. Idem dicit quod cum quedam vadia deposita essent penes Eliam fratrem suum pro quodam debito quo debebatur Abr' (filio) Murielle quia noluit ad primum mandatum suum reddere ei vadia illa ante quam debitum illud solutum esset fecit duci ad prisonam et uoluit eum imprisonare donec finem fecit cum eo per x. solidos. Et vadia illa ei abstulit. .. . (Item) dicit quod dedit ei xx. solidos per sic quod posset habere licenciam de capiendo quendam finem de Bertram' vicecomitc Lond'. . . quadam custodia. Hec sunt dona de communi Iudeorum. Primo Petro de Rivall' quando primos factus fuit Thesaurarius. c. Libre. Et postea cc. marce. Et postea finem fee . . . cum eo per ducentas marcas sed non reeepit nisi xvj. libras de illis cc. marcis. Item S. de Segrave de communi in primo xxx. libre. Item xxx. libre. Item v. marce Item xxx. solidi. De Communi. Item Robertus Passelewe quando factus fuit Iusticiarius Iudeorum L. marce. Item ad tallagium decem milia marcarum. . . . ipse pro auxilio eis inpereipiendo (?) c. marce. Item ad tallagium de Norht' de Communi c. marce. Item de Communi de Lond' lxx. marce sicut patet in rotulis alibi. Item Petrus Grimbaud de tallagio de Norht' x. libre de gracia. Memorandum quod quando Iudei talliare deberent ad quingentas libras apud Norht' ipsi talliauerunt ad dcc. libras et cum uellent omnes denarios illos plene persoluere ad scaccarium quando Robertus passel' et petrus de Rivall' hoc non permiserunt immo fecerunt pecu niam illam solui in Camera ipsius Petri. Et inde non sunt... ad scacc</page><page sequence="29">london jewry and ministers of henry iii 169 arium ut dicitur nisi cccc. et lxii. libre et post pentecosten scilicet post amotionem (?) eorum xl.. Item omnes dicunt quod Sim' clericus Roberti PasseP habuit ut gracia v. marcas. Item de Communi de Lond' . . . solidos pro reponendis Cirographis in Arcam. Item omnes dicunt quod Robertus passelewe habuit ij. pelues de com. ... et hoc apud Norht' pro summa tallagii Lond' equiperando tallagio Eboraci quod prius excessit. Item . . . seruienti Roberti passelewe de communi x. libras. [Space of two inches in MS.] tf,: Item dicit quod predictus Elias frater suus dedit eidem Roberti xl. solidos per sic quod non faceret inrotulari de . . . Item dicit quod cum socius Elias haberet quendam Garcionem qui furtim asportauit de area sua etc. c. sol(idos) . . . produceret garcionem ilium dedit eidem Roberto c. solidos per sic quod non duceret ad gaolam et impris(onare). Item dicit quod cum idem Robertus haberet custodiam terre et heredum Henri' de Gramau?T idem Henricus ... de catallis c. et xl. libras extra lucro idem Robertus cepit de area pedes Ciro graphorum confectorum inter ipsum Eliam ... et fecit eum duci ad Turrim ct ibi imprisonari donee fecit ei estarum suum de debito illo usque ad x. ... Et idem Elia offeret Domino Regi j marcam auri per sic quod possit recuperare ad totum debitum suum ... ad hoc habet cartam suam de debito illo. De aliis capitulis nichil seit quantum ad patrem et fratrem suum pertinet. * The following should have been inserted before the " Gifts of the Community," as part of the evidence of Solomon le Eveske.</page><page sequence="30">i7o LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III TRANSLATION Membrane 14. London. Evidence of Benedict Cr es pin. Benedict Crespin,1 having been sworn first, says that the manor of Boxsted2 which once belonged to Robert the son of Philip, was his pledge and that of Aaron the son of Abraham.3 And the said Robert owed to them for these lands and for other of his lands 900 (950 ?) marks.4 And William de (Plessitis ?)5 by the force and oppres? sion of Peter de Rivaux made them reduce that debt to 600 marks to Walter, the son of the said Robert, who made a fine with them. And this was done by reason of the marriage of his daughter to the son of the said William . . . and Walter later did this . . . through the manor of Boxsted which he gave to the said William at his re? quest. And the said William later distrained the said Benedict and Aaron to put that manor out of gage. And this they did because of the fear of the said Peter.6 Further, he says that he gave to Peter de Rivaux one silk girdle barred with silver of the value of 32 shillings. Further, he gave him a gold buckle worth two marks. Further, he also gave him one stone which is called a Cameo, which was cut with7 . . . and he gave him one gold buckle of the weight of four shillings which was worth 1 See note 28, p. 148. 2 In Essex. This estate is mentioned in Patent Rolls, 1232, p. 521, together with the names of Robert son of Philip and his son Walter. Also in Calendarium Inquisi tionum post mortem, 49 H. iii. 21. 3 See note 31, p. 148. 4 The text is doubtful. The whole of this paragraph is difficult to decipher, owing to the fading of the ink. 5 The name is illegible. Walter Rye gives " de Plessitis," who, he suggests, may have been a relative of John de Plessitis, a judge (Foss, I.e., ii. p. 442). In Patent Rolls, 1233, p. 14, de Rivaux presented a Church living to a William de Plessitis. 6 De Rivaux was Sheriff of Essex (Patent Rolls, 1232, p. 409) and once gave pos? session of another Essex estate to Walter son of Robert (Close Rolls, 1233, p. 209). 7 Rye reads " two angels." The words are now illegible.</page><page sequence="31">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III Tjl 43 shillings. Further, he with other Jews in common gave 100 pounds at the same time.8 Further, he says that he gave to Stephen de Segrave one girdle of silk barred with silver, worth two-and-a-half marks, and the above mentioned buckle of gold on behalf of his brother, Ursell,9 to the value of three-and-a-half marks. Besides, etc. Further, he says that he gave to Robert Passelewe one Cameo, which the latter afterwards gave to our Lord the King, and later one girdle worth 43 pence and one cup of the value of 20 shillings. Fur? ther, he had from the chattels of Aaron the Jew,10 who was hanged, one Cameo and one emerald and one girdle of the value of two marks and other chattels which ought to belong to our Lord the King.11 Further, he says that the above-named Robert, when the Jews did not keep a certain promise made to him, caused the archa of the Jews, with the charters and chirographs of the Jews, to be carried to his house and kept it there for one night till they made a fine with him for 100 shillings; and further, the witness being asked if it was taken away, how long it was there, he says he does not know, and later it was carried to the house of Simon Fitz Mary,12 and there kept for fifteen days or one month, but he does not know which. And there it was opened by Ralph Destin, a clerk of the said Robert, etc. Further, that the boxes with the chirographs and charters were carried in sacks to Westminster and afterwards they were brought back. And he says that the " feet "13 of certain chirographs were exposed for sale at West Cheap14 by the grooms of the said Robert. Further, 8 Probably the sums mentioned on p. 168. " The Gifts of the Community." 9 Ursell Crespin is not mentioned in the records. 10 There is no mention of the execution of this Aaron. 11 The property of criminals was forfeited to the Crown. 12 See note 53, p. 151. 13 Pes (i.e. foot) of the charter was the corresponding section of a deed that was preserved in the archa. See Gross, I.e., p. 182. Loewe, i. xiv. 14 Part of the present Cheapside.</page><page sequence="32">I72 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III he says that he gave to Peter Grimbaut15 one ring of the value of 20 shillings. Evidence of Jose Presbyter. Jose le Prestre,16 having been sworn, says that Robert Passelewe accused him before Peter de Rivaux, asserting to him that he was Treasurer of our Lord of Carlisle17 and of Hubert de Burgh,18 and caused him to be brought to Gloucester and threatened him that he would have him taken to Corfe Castle till he made a fine for 60 marks. And thereupon he paid 50 marks to Richard, the chamber? lain of the said Robert; and Isaac,19 his son, further paid ten marks to the same Robert at Windsor. Further, he handed him one garland (circlet) which he demanded for the use of our Lord the King at Tewkesbury, of the value of eight-and-a-half marks. Further, he says that with regard to the land which Ralph de Peshoc20 sold to Richard Reing,21 which was his pledge and was in his hand, because he had given assent to that sale and, because the same Robert did not have that land, he took him, that is Jose, and his son and caused them to be imprisoned until he had made a fine with him for 50 marks. Further, he says that he extorted from him in jewels, rings and buckles and other things to the value of 30 marks. Further, he took from him ten marks for himself because he had been helping him to have assistance from the Jews as regards the payments which Jose had given to him. Further, he gave him five marks to pay for the hospitality given to our Lord the King when he stayed (lit. ate) with him. Further, he says that he gave to Peter de Rivaux one Cameo and 15 See note 51, p. 150. 16 The Arch-Presbyter of the time. See note 29, p. 148. 17 Bishop Walter Maucicrc. Sec note 7, p. 142. 18 D.N.B., vol. vii. p. 315. Foss, I.e., p. 272. 19 Loewe, ii. 296. 20 Or Peshol, cf. Patent Rolls, 1230, p. 362. Close Rolls, 1230, p. 418. 21 Judge in London to whom de Rivaux and Passelewe surrendered their keys of office on their dismissal. (Patent Rolls, 1234, p. 53.) Mayor of London, 1238. Foss, I.e., p. 451</page><page sequence="33">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III I73 says that it was worth 40 marks. Further, he says that he gave to Simon, the clerk, 20 shillings. He says that he gave nothing to Stephen de Segrave except one ring of the value of two-and-a-half marks. Concerning the archa he says that he agrees with Benedict in all things except that he says that it was opened at the house of Robert himself and . . . that the boxes with the chirographs and charters were taken to Westminster. In order that it should be carried to where it ought to be, he gave them ten marks, and in this he differs from the preceding witness, but says that this amount was included in the whole sum. Evidence of Aaron s. of Abraham. Aaron, son of Abraham,22 having been sworn, agrees in all things with Benedict Crespin about the debt having been remitted to Walter, the son of Robert, by the force of Peter de Rivaux, and about the money and all other things. Further, he says that he gave nothing to Peter de Rivaux, nor to Stephen de Segrave, except in ?common with others. He says that, when Robert Passelewe threatened him, in order to have his favour, he gave him half a gold mark, which he had bought for 40 shillings. Further, he says, because a certain chirograph was not placed in the archa which had been made between him and Ralph Moryn23 about a certain debt on that day when his chirograph was made, he made a fine with him in money to the value of 40 shillings which he paid. Further, he gave him on other occasions four pounds. Further, he says that the same Robert took from Robert de Burnebury ten marks in order that he should distrain him to concede easy terms24 to that Robert for the debt of 30 marks, thus, that he should pay each year five marks till he had paid the debt. Further, he gave him, in order that he should not increase for him the sum of the tallage of North? ampton,25 three-and-a-half marks. Further, he says he took from 22 See note 31, p. 148. 23 Judge. Close Rolls, 1232, p. 159. Foss, I.e., p. 97. 24 For payment by instalments, 25 See note 59, p. 152,</page><page sequence="34">174 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III him and Aaron Blund26 and Elias Episcopus (le Eveske)27 two dishes and one cup of the value of six marks and eight shillings, that he should not tallage them more than they had already been tallaged. Further, about the same, at Northampton, because he had not come at the proper time to Northampton as he ought to have come, he took four pounds in gold and also . . . arrears of the community (?). Further, he says that he gave voluntarily in jewels to the value of five marks; that is to say, at each festival one jewel to the value of one mark. About the archa he fully agrees in all things with the fore-named Jose. Evidence of the Christian Chirographers of London. Robert of London and John de Solar,28 chirograph clerks, Chris? tians, having been sworn, say that Simon, the clerk of Robert Passel ewe, came to them on behalf of Robert his master and instructed them on behalf of his master that they should go with him to the archa, where the charters and chirographs were placed; and they did this, and he caused them to be taken to the house of his master, and he took the keys from them and then he went away, but they do not know what he did afterwards. They also say that he kept the keys for three weeks at a time, etc. and . . . and for another period either of four weeks . . . between Easter and Pentecost . . . and more, and detained them for fifteen days somewhere, and, in addition they did whatever they wished. But nothing . . . He demanded from the same John, the Chirographer, one barrel of wine to return him his office, and ... he gave his office to a certain Master Geoffrey le Vilein29 and Master Alexander of London. And they gave him ... for that office gifts, etc., namely, one ... heavy ring of the value of 40 shillings, but they were immediately removed. . . . 26 See note 34, p. 148. 27 See note 32, p. 148. 28 There were four Chirographers in charge of the royal archa, two Jews and two Christians. See Gross, I.e. 29 Patent Rolls, 1231, p. 444.</page><page sequence="35">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 175 Evidence of Jacob Crespin. Jacob Crespin,30 having been sworn, says that when Robert de Rupella31 made a fine with him and Benedict his brother for 200 marks about a certain debt; and in each year he ought to pay twelve pounds until that debt was paid, Peter de Rivaux by his compulsion made them reduce that debt to 60 pounds, to pay 100 shillings each year till the debt was paid; and this he did at the instance of the wife of William, the son of Elie, but he says that he received no money from the above-mentioned Robert de Rupella when ... on the above mentioned occasion. . . . Robert, when a certain John de Keu32 owed to Jacob and to Manasser Gruinguard,33 a Jew, a certain debt ... he had made with the said Robert for 40 shillings, lest he should reduce that debt, and in order that he should permit them to make an agreement with . . . Further, when a certain Peter Branche34 owed his wife two marks for a pledge, the same Robert made him return the pledges received for that Starr for paying that debt and nothing ... he did. . . . once he gave him one gold ring of the value of one mark; further, he says that his wife sent him about a half . . . Further, he gave on another occasion 20 spoons of the value of 20 shillings, and also 20 shillings, that he should not reduce the debt. About the gifts ... he says nothing, nor about the lands and the tenements which were his pledges. About the archa he agrees with the others mentioned above. Further, he says that he gave to Peter Grimbaud one ring of the value of half a mark. Further, he says that he gave Simon two rings of the value of half a mark. 30 See note 33, p. 148. 31 Of Rochelle; a land-owner. Close Rolls, 1231, p. 602; 1232, p. 129. 32 Close Rolls, 1227, pp. 9, 426. A debtor to the brothers Bonfey and Joseph Furmager of Bristol. Ibid., 1232, p. 426. (See J.M.E., p. 196.) 33 Same as Gruggan (?). Cf. Jenkinson, iii. Plea Rolls, 162. In Charter Rolls, 1259, p. 21. Cresse Gruggan occupied a house in Wood Street, London. 34 A soldier. Patent Rolls, 1242, p. 334.</page><page sequence="36">I76 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III Further . . . they say that Geoffrey le Vilein gave Simon one ring of the value of 40 shillings for replacing the chirographs in the archa besides . . . that was received from the Jews on the former occasion. Membrane 13. (Top half missing.) London continued. About Stephen de Segrave and Peter de Rivaux nothing, except of their own free will. Evidence of Samuel s. of Aaron. Samuel,35 son of Aaron, having been sworn, says that when a certain Robert de Fraxineto36 owed him ten pounds of his chattels without interest for one year and a half, the same Robert Passelewe made him reduce that debt to 20 shillings, and of these 20 shillings the same Robert Passelewe had ten shillings, and this he says because he had no more goods. About the other charges nothing. To others he neither gave nor remitted anything. Evidence of Elias Blund. Elias Blund,37 having been sworn, says that he gave nothing to Stephen de Segrave and Peter de Rivaux. About Robert Passelewe he says that when Walter le Greiert of London Bridge owed him 24 pounds for two tallies, Robert himself and Simon, his clerk, distrained him to reduce that debt to ten pounds to be paid in two years, and made him return one of his tallies. And he says that Simon then took from him half a mark on this occasion; and he says that he fully believes that Robert Passelewe had a barrel of wine on that occasion. Further, he says the same Simon had half 35 Son of Aaron le Blund. 36 A member of a well-known Norman family. 37 See note 35, p. 148.</page><page sequence="37">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 177 a mark from him and insisted upon him that he should promise him something when in truth he owed him nothing. Further, he says that he received half a mark from Leo Blund for the same reason; and says that they gave him one mark as a favour. Further, he says that he and Leo Blund, his friend, gave by the force of Robert Passelewe eight marks that he should not burden them heavily with the tallage. Further, he says that they two gave to Robert one cup of silver of the value of 40 shillings so as not to cause their chirographs to be seen, so that they should not be lost. About Peter Grimbaud he says that he and Leo, his friend, gave Peter two marks that he should intercede for them with the above mentioned Robert Passelewe. About the other charges nothing. Evidence of Isaac of Southwar\. Isaac of Southwark,38 having been sworn, says concerning Robert Passelewe that when a certain Elias, the son of Godard, owed him a certain debt of ten marks through his charters .. . and a certain house and one ... 44 shillings from his chattels, the rest being interest, the same Elias sold to John of Southwark that house that was his pledge. The said Robert, at the instigation of the aforesaid John, extorted that (house) from him and caused it to be broken, and he had him impri? soned at the Tower till he returned (the pledge) to him, and when this was (done), he handed it to the aforesaid John. About the other charges and persons nothing. Evidence of Aaron the Chirographer. Aaron, the Chirographer,39 having been sworn, says that when Helco Faucillun40 owed him and Benedict Crespin and certain (other) Jews eight marks of their chattels, without interest, for 16 years, at the instance of Peter de Rivaux they were compelled ... of the Jews to reduce that debt to 30 pounds. Further, he says that Robert Passelewe had of Margery, his sister, ?"'8 See note 37, p. 148. ? See note 38, p. 148. 40 Rigg i. 6 (1218); 33 (1220). Patent Rolls, 1230, p. 328. N</page><page sequence="38">I78 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III half a mark from her fine for having a respite from paying the tallage. Further, he says that the above-named Margery gave Simon the clerk of Robert Passelewe, four shillings on the same occasion. About the other charges and persons nothing. Evidence of Samuel of Hertford. Samuel of Hertford,41 having been sworn, says that Robert Passel? ewe extorted from him one mark in order that he should permit him to remain at Hertford in the domain of our Lord the King, where he was for ten weeks; and afterwards, because he wished to have from him ... it was by his writ that he was removed from there; but later he made no fine with him because he had nothing which he could (demand from him). About the other persons and charges nothing. Evidence of Solomon of Kingston. Solomon of Kingston,42 having been sworn, says that Robert Passelewe took from him and his Jewish friends 40 marks (?) in order that they should remain at Kingston. And when this money had been paid and they had (lived) there five weeks, he caused them to be removed. About the other matters nothing. Evidence of Jacob of Warwic\, Jacob le Eves\e, Isaac le Eves\e, Jacob le Tur\. Jacob of Warwick43 and Jacob le Eveske44 and Isaac le Eveske45 and Jacob le Turk,46 having been sworn, say . . . that they gave (nothing) to Stephen, nor to Peter nor to Robert. But Jacob of Warwick says in truth that when a certain . . . kinswoman of Simon the clerk owed him six pounds which she ought to have paid him at 41 See note 45, p. 149. 42 See note 46, p. T49. 43 Not mentioned in the records. 44 Brother of Elias le Eveske. See note 43, p. 149. 45 Another brother of Elias. Stokes, I.e., p. 14. 46 See note 44, p. 149.</page><page sequence="39">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 179 once without making terms, (he took) his tallies which he had in the archa of our Lord the King and handed them to Jose le Prestre and (forced him) to give him respite and terms extending over seven years. The others say that they gave nothing because they had nothing; but about the other charges nothing. Evidence of Abraham s. Muriel. Abraham, son of Muriel,47 having been sworn, says that when a certain William, son of Robert, Canon of St. Paul's,48 owed him . . . (and gave him) pledges, namely, cups and bowls of silver and spoons, which pledges were deposited with him . . . and with Elias le Eveske,49 the same Robert Passelewe distrained Elias to hand the pledge to him; thus Abraham had neither the pledge nor the debt. Further, he says that when Robert de Burnebury owed him six pounds of a debt, (Passelewe) distrained him and ordered him to (reduce) that debt to Robert to 50 shillings. Further, he says that he had from him as a gift jewels for the sum of two marks. About the archa he agrees with the others and that the " feet" of the chirographs were exposed for sale. But of the other charges and (persons) he knows nothing. Membrane 14^ Evidence of Aaron Bland. Aaron Blund,50 Jew, having been sworn, says that he gave nothing to Stephen de Segrave nor to Peter de Rivaux by (compulsion) nor of his own free will, etc. Further, he and Elias le Eveske and Aaron son of Abraham gave to Robert Passelewe for the assessment of the (Jewish) tallage at Northampton 40 shillings. And when each of them was tallaged in 47 See note 39, p. 149. 48 This Canon held office at the Cathedral in 1233. Newcourt, Repertorium of St. Paul's, i. p. 213. 49 See note 32, p. 148. 50 See note 34, p. 148.</page><page sequence="40">i8o LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III the sum of 24 pounds in the presence of Hugh de Bath'51 and the above-mentioned Robert, Robert caused him to be assessed at 20 pounds without the above-named Hugh and by himself. Further, he says that each one of them separately and by himself for the assess? ment of the tallage in the sum of 18 pounds, which he had been previously assessed, was (increased) to 20 pounds, and that Aaron gave 40 shillings for the second assessment for himself and paid the money by the hand of Crespin. Further, the above named three men gave Robert Passelewe five marks, so that they were assessed at 18 pounds, and the sum was not fixed at 24 pounds as it had previously been. Further, he says that he accommodated the above-mentioned Robert with 24 shillings to buy a fee, which had not yet been repaid to him. Further, he says, that he and the other above-mentioned gave . . . one cup and two silver bowls of the value of four pounds and eight shillings, in order that their debts should not be reckoned higher than others and that their chirographs should not be inspected. Further, he says that he gave him at Northampton, to have his favour [voluntary?], one golden buckle of the value of 22 shillings. Further, he says that he gave many rings whose value is more than ... he with the others. Further, he gave him ten shillings for his lodging at Northampton through the hand of a certain William le Marshall.52 Further, about the gifts taken from Christians, he says that Robert took from William le Bigod53 one ring with certain other goods of the value of 40 shillings and caused him to reduce to that William a debt of twelve pounds and ten shillings that was owing to him, Leo the son of Isaac54 and Elias Blund. About the archa and the chirographs he agrees with the others. 51 See note 63, p. 154. 52 A relative of the famous Marshal family who held high office, one being the Earl of Pembroke and another Governor of Ireland. 53 A State official of the Norfolk family. In 1232 he incurred the displeasure of Hubert de Burgh. Patent Rolls, p. 223. 54 Probably Leo Blund of Milk Street. See note 60, p. 153. Associated in a debt transaction with Elias le Eveske (Close Rolls, 1232, p. 61). Cf. Stokes, I.e., pp. 158, 278.</page><page sequence="41">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III l8l About the lands and tenements they know nothing. Further, he says that he gave to Simon the clerk one girdle of the value of half a mark. Further, the same Elias and Aaron gave to this man five marks that their chirographs should be replaced in the arc ha. Further, he says that he and the others gave to Peter Grimbaud three marks in order that he should intercede for them with his master Robert Passelewe. Evidence of Benedict s. Pictavin. Benedict, son of Pictavin,55 having been sworn, says that he never gave anything to Stephen de Segrave, nor to Peter de Rivaux, except of his own will, nor to . . . nor did he remit any debt for them or through them. Further, he says that he never gave anything of his own free will to Robert Passelewe. But he says that when John de Caudres56 owed him 42 pounds, in addition to interest, Robert made him reduce that debt to fourteen pounds and half a mark. Further, he says that the same Robert Passelewe compelled his sister, Ermine, together with the wife of Jacob Crespin, to make a chirograph with a certain foreign merchant for 30 shillings. He then took Benedict and his wife and sister and imprisoned them in the Tower of London till he made a fine for six marks in pence and 20 small gold coins of the value of 25 shillings and ten pence. Further, he gave, to be set free from prison, 20 shillings. Being asked if he gave anything to be liberated (?)... of our Lord the King and of others, he says that it was voluntary with them because he and they paid for all the lodging which he received (?). About the archa he agrees with the others and says that the afore? named Simon had all the keys of the archa and did what he wished; and he does not know what was left in the archa of any chirographs or other things, because Simon did whatever he wished. 55 See note 40, p. 149. 56 A royal official. (Close Rolls, 1230, p. 286.) In 1236 he was a debtor of Aaron son of Abraham and Samuel son of Aaron le Blund. (Ibid., p. 279.)</page><page sequence="42">182 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III About the lands and the tenements he knows nothing, nor about the other matters. He gave nothing to Peter Grimbaud nor to Simon the clerk, except one scriptoria '1 to the value of half a mark. Further, he says that he gave nothing to Ralph Dastin. Further, he says that Robert Passelewe made him give Baalun his servant . . . the common (?) of the City of London two marks and a half, in order that Baalun should make himself his minstrel. Evidence of Solomon le Eves\e. Solomon le Eveske,58 having been sworn, says that he never gave anything to Stephen de Segrave nor to Peter de Rivaux nor did he remit any debts nor did he do anything else for them. Further, he says that he gave to Robert Passelewe certain silver spurs of the value of two marks to have his help and his favour. About the other charges nothing. About the chirographs and the archa he agrees with the others. Further, he says that he gave to Ralph Dastin, the clerk, half a mark, because he wished to interfere with a certain fine, so that he should not . . . him. Further, he says that he gave Simon the clerk a knife of the value of half a mark. Further, he says that his father was feeble59 and that his brother Elias le Eveske was ill so that they could not come, and they enjoined upon him that he should speak and answer for them. And he says upon his oath that Stephen de Segrave and Peter de (Rivaux) took nothing. . . . Further, he says that Robert Passelewe took from Benedict le Eveske of London, his father ... so that he should permit a certain fine to be held over which was made in the presence of Hubert de Burgh, formerly Chief Justice. About the other mat? ters he knows nothing that concerns his father. 57 A set of writing instruments; from this word ccritaire is derived. The word scriptoria does not appear in Baxter and Johnson's Medieval Latin Word-List. r&gt;8 See note 41, p. 149. 59 Benedict is first mentioned in 1218 (Rigg, i. 7), and 1219 (Ibid., 16).</page><page sequence="43">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 183 He further says that when certain pledges were deposited with his brother, Elias, on behalf of a certain debt which was owing to Abraham (son of) Muriel,60 because he did not wish at his first demand to return him those pledges before that debt had been paid, he caused him (Elias) to be taken to prison and wished to imprison him till he had made a fine with him for ten shillings; and he took away those pledges from him. . . . Further, he says that he gave him 20 shillings in order that he should have licence to take a certain fine from Bertram,61 the Sheriff of London ... for having a certain custody . . . * Further, he says that the above-mentioned Elias, his brother, gave Robert 40 shillings in order that he should not cause to be en? rolled. . . . Further, he says, that when his friend,62 Elias, had a certain groom who secretly carried away from his archa 100 shillings . . . that he should produce that groom, he gave Robert 100 shillings that he should not lead him to gaol and imprison him. Further, he says that when Robert had custody of the land and of the heirs of Henry de Gramaville,63 this Henry ... of his chattels 140 pounds, in addition to interest; the same Robert took from the archa the " feet " of the chirographs made between Elias . . . and caused him to be taken to the Tower and there to be imprisoned till he made with him his Starr about that debt for ten (?)... and the said Elias offered our Lord the King one mark of gold in order that he should * In the manuscript the following paragraph is inserted after " the Gifts of the Community." 60 See note 39, p. 149. 61 His name does not appear in any list of Sheriffs of London. 62 Clerical error for brother. 63 He was the owner of a manor in Gravesend, Kent. [Cal. Inquis. post mortem, 54, H. iii. p. 33.) Close Rolls, 1233, p. 191, has the following entry illustrating our document: " The King pardoned Robert Passelewe, to whom he had committed the custody of the lands and heirs of Henry de Gramaville, with marriage of the heirs, the interest exceeding the first debt which Henry had accepted on loan from Elias Episcopus, Jew of London, and Elias was to be content with the capital only." (See also p. 477.) The following year (p. 493) complaint was made that Passelewe had taken corn, stock and chattels from the Gramaville estate entrusted to his charge. See also Patent Rolls, 1237, p. 11.</page><page sequence="44">184 LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III recover all that debt ... for which purpose he has his charter for that debt. Of other charges he knows nothing so far as they concern his father and his brother. These are the gifts of the Community of the Jews :64 First: To Peter de Rivaux when he was first made Treasurer, 100 pounds, and later 200 marks, and later they made a fine with him for 200 marks, but he only received 16 pounds of those 200 marks. Further, to Stephen de Segrave from the Community, first 30 pounds, and then sums of 30 pounds, five marks and 30 shillings. From the Community. Further, Robert Passelewe from the Community when he was made Justice of the Jews, 50 marks. Further, for the tallage of 10,000 marks65. . . for aid to them in collecting, 100 marks. Further from the Community for the tallage of Northampton, 100 marks. Further, from the Community of London 70 marks, as it is set forth in rolls elsewhere. Further, Peter Grimbaud (received) of the tallage of Northampton, ten pounds as a gift. It is to be noted that when the Jews ought to have been tallaged in the sum of 500 pounds at Northampton, they tallaged them for 700 pounds; and when they wished to pay all these monies in full to the Exchequer, Robert Passelewe and Peter de Rivaux not only did not allow them to do this, but made them pay this money into the Chamber of Peter;66 and thus they are not (acquitted?) at the Ex? chequer, as it is said, save in respect of 452 pounds, and after Pente? cost, i.e. after their summons (removal?) 40. . . . Further, they all say that Simon, the clerk of Robert Passelewe, had as a gift five marks. Further, from the Community of London . . . shillings to 64 Of London. 65 Sec note 58, p. 152. 66 De Rivaux held the office of Keeper of the Wardrobe from 1218 to 1224, again from 1232 to 1234, and later from 1257 to 1258. For these three periods no accounts arc in existence. See Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, i. p. 220.</page><page sequence="45">LONDON JEWRY AND MINISTERS OF HENRY III 185 replace the chirographs in the archa. Further they all say that Robert Passelewe had from the Community two dishes (?) at Northampton for equalising the tallagc of London with the tallage of York which formerly it had exceeded. Further ... to the servant of Robert Passelewe from the Com? munity ten pounds.</page></plain_text>

bottom of page