David of Oxford

Asher of Lincoln had a son, David, who married a local woman, Muriel, and at some point moved to Oxford, where he lived in a house on St. Aldate's (now site of the Oxford Town Hall), where Oxford Jews congregated their homes. (The illustration is by an 18th-century artist, Jonathan Skelton.)

David was one of the wealthiest Anglo-Jewish financiers of the 13th century. He was one of six wealthy Jews engaged by King Henry III to collect the tallage, the special tax the Crown often imposed on Jews to raise funds quickly for royal projects.

The Close Rolls in England were an administrative record of every letter and order issued with the authority of the Crown behind it. There is an entry from Winchester for 27 August, 1242:

For David of Oxford: The King to Masters Moses of London, Aaron of Canterbury, and Jacob of [Oxford], Jews, greeting. We do hereby forbid you to hold henceforth any plea concerning David Jew of Oxford and Muriel who was wife of the same; nor under any circumstances are you to distrain him either to take or to keep that wife or any other. Know for certainly that if you do otherwise, you will incur grave punishment therefore.

In short, the king forbade anyone (and those three in particular) from acting with any authority on the current issue of David and Muriel "who was wife of the same." Note the italics. David divorced Muriel, presumably because they were childless and he wanted a son to whom he could leave his fortune. Jewish law forbade divorcing a wife without her consent. Muriel (we assume) did not consent, and appealed for help.

She appealed to her family in Lincoln. Peytevin the Great, who had his own synagogue, appealed to the beth din (rabbinical court) in France (the rabbis of France were considered very authoritative). The word from France seemed to be that David acted improperly and must take Muriel back. An ad hoc beth din was assembled in Oxford of three men to ratify this decision and present it to David. We know who these men were because of another entry in the Close Rolls on the same date. I share the relevant part here:

... Moreover, Peytevin of Lincoln, Muriel who was the wife of David of Oxford, Benedict f. (son of) Peytevin of Lincoln, Vaalyn', and Moses de Barbun', Jews, are to appear before the aforesaid Archbishop and others of the King's council on the octave of St Michael, wheresoever they shall be in England, to show cause why they sent to France to the Jews of France to hold a chapter on the Jews of England. And the said justices are enjoined not to permit David of Oxford to be constrained to take or to keep any wife save of his own desire.

David, seeing the decision to overturn his divorce, obviously turned to the authority that could override the English Jews and give David what he wanted, the man who relied on David for ready money, King Henry III.

Tomorrow I'll tell you how it turned out, what happened to Muriel, and why David's second wife was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Old Jewry

In the City of London there is a street still called Old Jewry, currently dominated mostly by financial offices. In 2001 the remains of a mikveh (ritual bath, requiring fresh flowing water) was discovered in the area, attesting to its former Jewish occupation. It would have been abandoned when the Jews were expelled in 1290 by King Edward I.

(The illustration shows Old Jewry on the Agas Map, a woodcut made of London probably in the 1560s. It shows Old Jewry [in yellow] linking Poultry Street to Gresham Street. The street is still called Old Jewry, as you can see in the illustration to this 2012 post.)

Although Jews could travel anywhere and any time, they likely came to England in larger numbers from Rouen after 1066, when William invited them to take up residence. By that time Jews were well-known as money-lenders, and William knew he would need money to finance his consolidation of his new country.

Because of their financial importance to the Crown, London Jews were given rights by some kings. William's son William Rufus even brought rabbis and priests together in London to debate religion, teasing his priests that if the Jews won then Rufus would convert.

After the suspicious death of Rufus, Henry I continued the royal policy of giving the Jews privileges unavailable to regular subjects. Jews were a valuable source of financial support; the king would occasionally tax them to raise money quickly. Henry issued a royal charter giving Jews certain protections and freedoms. Jews were given freedom of movement without having to pay the king's tolls, the right to be tried by their Jewish peers, and the right to swear on the Torah in a court of law.

Besides the mikveh, Jewry street also contained the Great Synagogue, which was closed in 1272 after the death of Henry III—who "supported" the Jews with his charity institution, the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") placed on the western edge of London far from Jewry, possibly to help prevent apostasy—and the rise to power of Edward I.

One of the other chief locations of Jews in England after they came from the continent in the 11th century was Oxford, and we'll look at their presence there tomorrow.

The Second Barons' War Begins

So the first phase of the Second Barons' War happened very quickly. The rebellious barons invaded London and captured King Henry III and Queen Eleanor of Provence. Simon de Montfort, who was married to Henry's sister, assumed control of the government, making rulings in Henry's name.

Much of the country was still loyal to the king, however, and there were nobles with soldiers who opposed Simon. Henry's son Edward (later King Edward I) had originally dabbled with rebelling against his father (a common occurrence in English politics), but now decided to become leader of the royalist party. He brought his own forces to seize Windsor from the rebels.

Widespread fighting was inevitable, and so they turned to King Louis IX of France. Why? One of the provisions of Magna Carta was that France's king would be brought in to mediate between England's king and his barons.

Henry was allowed to go to France in December 1263 to present his side to Louis. Simon, having sustained a broken leg during fighting, did not make the trip. He was represented by Peter de Montfort and others. (The illustration shows the letter, dated October 1263, explaining Henry's case, with the seals of the nobles who supported him attached.)

Henry complained that he had the right to appoint his own ministers, that his castles had been ruined or destroyed by the rebels, and demanded restitution of £300,000 and 200,000 marks. The barons' statement points out that Henry had accepted the Provisions of Oxford and then violated them. There were other accusations.

On 23 January 1264, Louis made his decision, called the Mise [settlement] of Amiens. Since the pope had already declared that Henry's oath (made on the Gospels) was forgiven and that he did not have to follow the Provisions, Louis ruled completely in Henry's favor. Louis, also a king himself, was not very likely to make a decision that diminished a king's authority. (Also, Eleanor of Provence was Louis' sister-in-law, so Louis may have seen this as a family matter.)

Rather than a solution, this put the conflict between the barons and royal authority right back to square one. Nothing could stop the war that was about to erupt. See you next time.

The Provisions Overturned

The Provisions of Oxford, a result of the barons demanding reforms from King Henry III during the Mad Parliament in exchange for raising money for him, were overturned a few years later.

Henry's need for money came from trying to finance a war against the Hohenstaufens for the Kingdom of Sicily. Henry wanted it for his younger son Edmund. Pope Innocent IV wanted Henry to "buy" it to avoid giving the Hohenstaufens a foothold in Italy (the Kingdom of Sicily included the Regno, that held much of southern Italy, right on the papacy's threshold).

Although Henry had sworn on the Gospel to accept the Provisions, a papal bull in 1261 absolved Henry of the need to follow them. The barons called their own parliament to re-assert control over government, but Henry was not about to back down, and he still had several powerful earls and barons on his side. Simon de Montfort, one of the chief instigators of rebellion (even though he was married to Henry's sister), saw they were outmatched and fled to France.

The First Barons' War that ended with Magna Carta also set up a method by which the King of France would mediate disputes between King John and the barons (illustration). This was tried with King Louis and Henry versus the barons, but there was little agreement on each side.

Henry's need for financial support disappeared when he gave up trying to gain Sicily for Edmund, and therefore his reason for agreeing to the barons' demands disappeared. Then, in 1262, one of his strongest supporters, Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Gloucester, died. Richard's son and successor, Gilbert de Clare, brought the resources of Gloucester to the side of the rebels.

Henry's re-assertion of his ultimate authority continued to anger the barons and earls, and in April 1263 several of them invited Simon de M Montfort back to England to join them in opposition. Simon gathered all the barons opposed to the king at Oxford. Before the end of 1263 both sides had raised large armies. Simon de Montfort's army marched on London where they found local support. Henry and his queen were trapped in the Tower of London, but before long were taken prisoner and de Montfort took control of England.

Not everyone approved of this usurpation, or of de Montfort himself. We'll look at what happened next tomorrow.

The Provisions of Westminster

The Provisions of Oxford, reorganizing the government of England with a series of checks and balances that removed power from King Henry III and distributed it among a large council of barons and others, were replaced a year later by the Provisions of Westminster of 1259.

This document restated the Provisions of Oxford, but added additional changes to taxation and inheritance policies, and included a section on mortmain.

The term "mortmain" comes from Latin mortua manus ("dead hand"), and refers to the permanent ownership of property by a legal entity, such as a church owning property from which it gains revenue through rent. Because the church entity was not a living person, the land could be said to be held not by a living person but in a "dead hand." (We think that is the explanation of the term, but no one knows for certain.)

Land held by an individual could be passed on to another when the individual died. If the individual had no heirs, the Crown took possession and chose to whom it should go. Mortmain meant that a legal entity could posses land eternally. Since a diocese or parish did not die, land possessed by such an entity stayed in Church hands in perpetuity.

The Provisions of Westminster put limits on mortmain, requiring approval from secular authorities (king and council) for the Church to hold land in perpetuity. (More limits were created in later administrations, such as by Henry's son Edward I).

There was more to the Provisions than mortmain, of course. Some additional parts claim that an accusation of murder could not be brought when a death was caused by accident. Also, a person could not be fined for making an honest mistake ("I didn't know I was trespassing" for instance).

A few years after this, however, the Provisions of Oxford and their successor, the Provisions of Westminster, were overturned completely. This would set up the Second Barons' War. I'll tell you how they were overturned next time.

(By the way, you can read Modern English translations of the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster here.)

The Mad Parliament

King Henry III had spent lavishly on many things, including trying to fund a war to gain the Kingdom of Sicily for his younger son Edmund. He was confronted by a number of barons who would only agree to raise money for him if he would commit to some reforms.

He called Parliament to gather at Westminster Hall (the illustration shows the room wherein they would have gathered) on 9 April 1258 to raise money. Three days later, Simon de Montfort and others refused the king's request to provide funds. They were given three days to reconsider, and so three days later several earls and barons and knights returned to Westminster, fully armed, to repeat their refusal and told the king he would get his money if he would submit to their policy demands.

Henry had little choice but to agree, and so he swore on the Gospel that he would go along with their demands and a commission was formed, 12 chosen by Henry and 12 chosen by the opposition, to meet at Oxford in June and discuss future policy. The result was the Provisions of Oxford.

The provisions re-organized government and could be called the first constitution. (The Magna Carta was not a reorganization of how government worked; it was a list of policies.) Under the Provisions, Parliament met regularly thrice each year, not just when the king wanted it. A council of 15 was created to manage appointments of ministers instead of having the king pick all his people. Parliament would oversee the council's actions.

Besides 15 members, the council would also include the justiciar, the chancellor, and the treasurer, and others. It was unlikely that the 15 would all be able to hang about the king all the time, so usually a few were around and would decide if any matter was important enough to summon the others. The chancellor, keeper of the king's seal, was forced to agree that he would not use the seal to approve an important grant unless a majority of the 15 greed. These checks and balances were unusual in a monarchy.

In an unusual move, the provisions were copied and sent to all the sheriffs of all the counties in three languages: Latin, French, and (Middle) English. The use of English was a signal of the barons' objection to all the French influences and advisors of the king.

The Provisons of Oxford were only supposed to be in effect for 12 years until a more permanent and more wide-spread set of changes could be devised. They lasted for one year. I'll explain tomorrow.

The Second Barons' War—Causes

The Second Barons' War started in 1264 by Simon de Montfort, the 6th Earl of Leicester, against King Henry III of England. Henry was relying to much on favorites for advice—many of them from France, which annoyed the English lords—and the barons of the land wanted to have more authority in guiding king and country.

Ironically, de Montfort was one of those French foreigners whom Henry favored with not only his title (originally withheld, though his by right through his English mother), but also by marriage to Henry's sister. Such a royal marriage was a political matter, and traditionally the barons would be consulted. So de Montfort himself was one of the reasons the barons were not pleased with their king.

de Montfort started to turn against Henry when de Montfort was put on trial for actions in Gascony. He had been named governor of Gascony in 1248, whereupon he exercised his authority by suppressing the local lords' excessive behavior. Although ultimately acquitted of improper behavior, de Montfort was relieved of the title in 1252, and Henry himself went to Gascony to reconcile with the locals.

The insult to de Montfort caused a falling out between him and Henry.

Another point of contention was the control the king had over the Jewish population. (See the Statute of Jewry post.) Often, when the king wanted an influx of money, he would tax the Jewish population exorbitantly. The Jewish moneylenders would sometimes raise cash quickly by selling the debt contracts to someone with money to buy them. A wealthy lord would buy the contracts at a cheaper price, then start to collect (rather than use the long-term method of allowing interest to grow, since Christians were forbidden to charge interest). This impoverished many.

The death of Hugh of Lincoln in 1255, blamed on the Jews, also inflamed anti-semitism. That, debts barons owed to Jews, and anti-Jewish policies promoted by the Church helped give de Montfort an enemy and motivation to create widespread change to the political system. He called for the cancellation of all Jewish debt. (Note that France was more anti-Jew than England, having expelled all Jews in 1182 by order of King Philip II shortly after his coronation.) de Montfort himself expelled all Jews from Leicester back in 1231.

Another point of contention between the barons and the king was Henry's attempt to gain the throne of Sicily for his son Edmund, which he attempted to buy from Pope Innocent IV. The barons objected to Henry's attempt to raise money and start a war against the Hohenstaufens for Sicily.

This gave the barons an opening to curb the king's power, however. They would agree to make up the financial losses of his war for Sicily, if he would agree to some demands of theirs. I'll explain the deal they made next time.

Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl

We have to distinguish Simon's title, because there was more than one prominent Englishman with that name. Simon the 6th Earl of Leicester (also 1st Earl of Chester), was born c.1208. His father was the 5th Earl, and also called Simon de Montfort. Another way to distinguish them is that the father was Simon IV, and the one we're talking about today is Simon V. His mother was Alix de Montmorency, a French noblewoman, who died when Simon was a teenager.

Simon IV accompanied his father on campaigns against the Cathars and was present at the Siege of Toulouse. He took part in the Barons Crusade to the Holy Land. His brother, Amaury, also participated in these endeavors.

Although Simon's father was the 5th Earl of Leicester, that man had claimed a lot of territory on the continent during the Albigensian Crusade and was becoming more powerful than King John of England liked.

Simon IV was killed in 1218 by a stone from a mangonel during the Siege of Toulouse, but King John did not allow Simon V to succeed to the Earldom of Leicester after Simon IV's death, giving it instead to Simon IV's cousin, Ranulf de Blondeville.

Simon V came to England in 1229 to meet with the current king, Henry III. Simon spoke French, which was also at that time the language of the Court, and Henry seemed to trend toward having advisors who were from France.

Because of territory claimed by Simon V in France, Simon IV and Amaury owed allegiance to the French king. The two brothers came to an agreement: Simon would give up any rights to the French lands, and Amaury would give up his rights to the English lands.

Henry then allowed Simon IV to approach Ranulph (who was childless) and ask to be his heir for the earldom. Ranulph assented, but Simon did not gain the title until 1239.

In 1236, Simon IV wanted to marry Joan, Countess of Flanders, which would have given the next Earl of Leicester a prominent foothold next to France. The French king did not approve, and Joan married someone else.

Simon was about to make an even better marriage from a political standpoint, which we will start with tomorrow.