MagnaCarta’sthreeJewishclauses
IF YOU ask most people what they associate with Magna Carta, they may say: King John, barons, Runnymede, or the beginning of English democracy. What they will not say is: Jews. Yet three of its clauses directly relate to Jews, and, in particular, their moneylending activities. It means that the document not only has enormous significance for English history, but also epitomises the privileges and problems of medieval Anglo-Jewry. Magna Carta was signed on June 15 1215, and there will be many commemorative events for its 800th anniversary next year, but its Jewish roots go back to 1066. It is likely that individual Jews came to this country long before then, as far back as Roman times, whether willingly as traders, or by force as slaves. However, it is impossible to talk of a settled Jewish community until the late 11th century. It was then that William of Normandy brought over Jews from his French territory to help colonise his new kingdom.
The first Jews to arrive probably settled in the London area, either because it was one of the nearest points of entry or because it was the seat of royal power. The latter was important as the Jews were outside of the traditional feudal system, which was based on land and allegiance to local overlords, from serfs to squires to nobility to the monarch.
As Jews did not have a set place in this hierarchical chain, a niche had to be created for them, and their right of residence was made dependent on the will of the Crown. It was a two-way relationship: they being answerable directly to the king and the king being their protector.
When their legal status was formalised, they were described as “chattels” of the king and physically belonging to him. In fact, like property, the king could mortgage his entire Jewry when needing to raise revenue. He could also tax them directly without permission of Parliament.
The Crown’s fiscal power over Jews meant that it was in the king’s interest to ensure their safety, although more for his benefit than theirs. The total subservience of the Jews to the Crown was codified in graphic detail by John’s son, Henry III, in his Mandate to the Justices of 1253, which declared: “No Jew remain in England unless he do the king’s service, and that from the hour of birth every Jew, whether male or female, serve Us in some way”.
William encouraged Jewish migration here for two reasons. First, it was obviously useful having people who were both French speakers and loyal to him. On the continent, Jews tended to be an urban population, not tied to the land and farms, much more mobile than most sections of society, and so were more amenable to uprooting and crossing the English Channel.
Second, many of them performed a very useful economic function as moneylenders. This was not a matter of natural aptitude but of biblical interpretation.
The Bible permits money-lending in principle, but stipulates several times that “you shall not lend upon interest to your brother” (Exodus 22. 24, Leviticus 25. 35, Deuteronomy 23. 20).
This begs the question as to the definition of “your brother”. It was understood by rabbinic law to mean a fellow Jew, and that, as an act of kindness to co-religionists, one should not charge them interest, although one could do so to outsiders.
In the Christian world, however, canon law held “your brother” to apply to anyone, and the verses to be an outright ban on levying interest. This may have been admirable in principle, but did not work in practice as there was a constant demand for loans at all levels of society; yet few people were prepared to make loans without charging interest, both so as to make a profit and so as to compensate for defaulters.
With Christians being forbidden to enter such arrangements, here was an important economic vacuum. At the same time, medieval Jews were barred from many other occupations: they could not farm, as they were not allowed to own land in the countryside, while many artisan jobs in towns were closed to them as they could not join the guilds, which had a Christian character and where the admission ceremony involved swearing an oath in the name of Jesus Christ.
THE COINCIDENCE of these factors led many Jews to engage in money-lending. Unfortunately, it was an occupation that brought them many problems in the long term, for everyone welcomes the money-lender when in need of a loan but tends to resent him when repayment is due. Thus, anti-Jewish feeling became an inevitable by-product of their economic role in society. In addition, they faced the risk of clients being unable to repay their debts, along with the hazard of the king rewarding his followers by pardoning them of Jewish debts.
Of course, there were Jews in other trades, too, whether within the community (a teacher or shochet) or in wider society. Money-lending was certainly a Jewish occupation, but not all Jews were money-lenders.
The barons were among those who most disliked Jewish money-lending activities, even though they themselves made full use of them. Not only did they dislike the interest they had to pay, but they were appalled at how Jews were indirectly bolstering the power of the Crown at their expense.
What happened was that, if landowners could not pay their debts to the Jews, they forfeited the property they had put up as collateral. As Jews could not own land, this then reverted to their master, the king, who systematically built up his holdings. It meant that the Jews were accidental agents in a substantial land transfer to the king, and in increasing his powers nationally.
There was another, very particular, concern the barons had: if they were killed in battle or died through some other means before they had paid off their debt to the Jews, it would then fall to their estate to pay and they had seen the effects that mounting interest might have on under-age heirs and widows. This led directly to two “Jewish clauses” in Magna Carta:
10. If anyone who has borrowed from the Jews any amount, large or small, dies before the debt is repaid, it shall not carry interest as long as the heir is under age, of whomsoever he holds; and if that debt falls into our hands [if the Jewish creditor dies and the king takes over his bonds], we will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.