suddenness of the inquisition, the great number of those executed, and the conduct of the government and people at large to those whom they did not execute, convince me that the Jews had not fair play, but that by far the majority of them were unjustly convicted. It is curious to observe in the page of the English historian, first the statement that “the king’s finances were exhausted,” and the same page ends with an account of “the vast sums raised by the seizure of the Jews’ houses and effects, and the fines imposed upon those who escaped death, and the goldsmiths who were involved in the suspicion of being concerned with them.”² ¹ Henry’s Britain, vol. vii., p. 75. ² Hume and Smollett. The only circumstance mentioned by the historian which seems to glance at the crimination of any of them is, that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Here seems to be something like evidence; we must therefore pay attention to it. If he had said that there had been found in their houses great quantities of gold dust of the same standard with the current coin, it would have amounted to circumstantial evidence, which, if strongly corroborated with other proofs, might induce an impartial jury to convict a prisoner; but no such thing is mentioned; it is only said that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Now this, so far from being evidence against them, was evidence in their favour, if rightly considered: but what signified evidence in favour of a Jew, when he was accused upon a general rumour? His judge and jury composed of those who hated him and his nation, and who would rejoice and exult in his conviction and sufferings. Who was there to plead his cause? Is there the least ground to suppose that they had even a single chance of being acquitted? The very evidence which is considered as a proof of their guilt should have produced their acquittal; for if they had been concerned in clipping the coin, they would have hoarded unclipped money in order to clip it, and put the clipped money in circulation. And again they dealt in money, and hoarded money; if, therefore, the money which was in circulation was clipped and depreciated in value, what could they deal in, what could they hoard but clipped money? Once more, the Flemings were mentioned as being implicated with the Jews in the suspicion of being guilty of this crime; and in the account we are now considering, we find that the goldsmiths were charged with being their accomplices, although they (being Christians) were only fined, and not hanged for it. I think there can be little doubt, but that they were the principal criminals, for if a goldsmith were not restrained by the detestation of such a crime, but would become _particeps criminis_, and subject himself to the punishment of the law, would he admit an accomplice to render his detection the more probable? would he permit an accomplice to run away with the main