The great coin-clipping scandal of 1278–9 stands among the most dramatic and tragic episodes in the history of England’s medieval Jewish community. Under King Edward I, the Crown launched an extensive judicial and financial campaign against alleged coin-clippers, which are those accused of shaving or clipping small quantities of silver from English pennies. In November 1278, the king ordered the mass arrest of more than 1,178 Jews across the realm, along with numerous Christians, on charges of debasing the coinage. This event signalled not merely a royal response to monetary crime, but a calculated act of fiscal and political policy, with devastating consequences for English Jewry.
Since the reign of Henry III, responsibility for judicial matters involving the Jews had fallen under the Exchequer of the Jews, which exercised jurisdiction over Jews accused of monetary offences. As early as 1238, Sir William le Breton and two other justices of the Jews were assigned to investigate and try cases of coin-clipping, aided by eight Jewish assessors from London and York. Despite these early measures, the problem of coin debasement persisted.
In 1247, Henry III ordered that the “short cross” on the reverse of the English penny be extended to the coin’s edge: a measure intended to make clipping easier to detect. Yet by the beginning of Edward I’s reign, even the “long cross” pennies had become so worn through use and wilful mutilation that coin-clipping appeared to be on the rise. The Hundred Rolls inquiry of 1274–5 reflected growing unease, recording rumours of coin-clipping, counterfeiting, and the illicit trade in clipped coins, particularly among the Jews of Bristol. While these early accusations were largely unsubstantiated, the suspicion laid groundwork for later royal action.
A Monetary and Judicial Crisis
e A clipped silver solid long-cross Halfpenny of Edward I or II. Photo Cambridgeshire County Council / Wikimedia Commons
By the mid-1270s, cases of coin-clipping and related offences multiplied in the plea rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews. This increase coincided with the prohibition of usury under the Statutes of Jewry (1275), which had already curtailed Jewish lending activities and strained their economic survival. At the same time, Edward I faced a genuine monetary crisis: by 1278, the English coinage had become so degraded that contracts increasingly stipulated payment in “good, round, unclipped coin”.
Coin-clipping was now being treated as a capital offence, equated with high treason for debasing the king’s image. Yet Edward’s motives extended beyond preserving monetary integrity. As with much Angevin policy toward the Jews, there was a fiscal incentive, the prospect of large fines, forfeitures, and confiscations following successful prosecutions. To pursue the issue rigorously, Edward turned to commissions of oyer and terminer which are judicial bodies appointed “to hear and determine” specific categories of offences.
The Commissions of 1279
On 5 January 1279, at Windsor, the king issued letters patent creating three special commissions of oyer and terminer. Each consisted of three royal justices assigned to distinct regions of the kingdom.
Stephen de Penecestre, Walter de Helyun, and John de Cobham were charged with investigating London and fourteen southern and eastern counties.
Bartholomew de Suthleye, William de Brayboeuf, and Adam le Botiller oversaw the western counties.
John Bek, Alexander de Kirketon, and Ranulph de Acre were assigned to the northern and midland counties.
These commissions operated alongside the general eyre of 1278–9, enabling the Crown to process cases more efficiently. The justices were empowered to conduct inquests into coin-clipping, receive jury presentments, try pleas of the Crown, and render judgments. They were also issued the Capitula de tonsura monete – a detailed set of seventeen articles defining the scope of their investigations.
The Capitula de tonsura monete
Portrait in Westminster Abbey, thought to be of Edward I
The Capitula provided an exhaustive list of suspected offences, from clipping coins and exchanging clipped silver to bribery, concealment, and corruption among royal officials. It targeted not only Jews and Christians accused of monetary trespass but also sheriffs, bailiffs, and justices suspected of taking bribes or concealing crimes. Even founders and goldsmiths who refined clippings or exchanged good money for bad fell under suspicion. In practice, many of these officials and artisans were arrested alongside Jewish moneyers and lenders.
Here is the full text with its translation:
Incipiunt capitula de tonsura monete. Here begin the chapters concerning the clipping of coin.
[1] De tonsura monete tam de judeis quam christianis.
Concerning the clipping of coin committed both by Jews and by Christians.
[2] De hiis qui tradiderunt denarios suos retonsoribus pro habendo lucro tonsure.
Concerning those who have delivered their pennies to coin-clippers in order to gain profit from the clippings.
[3] De vicecomitibus constabulariis et aliis ballivis regis vel alterius qui sub se habuerint in custodia sua infra ballivas suas judeos quoscumque et qui consenserint eisdem et gratis permiserint facere retonsuras pro certa mercede per certam conventionem factam capienda.
Concerning sheriffs, constables, and other bailiffs of the king or of others who have had Jews in their custody within their jurisdictions, and who have consented to them and willingly allowed them to clip coin in return for an agreed payment under a certain bargain.
[4] De vicecomitibus constabulariis qui retonsuras ceperint vel attachiaverint cum retonsura cruda vel in platis seisitos et qui pro mercede eos deliberaverint et attachiamentum illud concelaverint.
Concerning sheriffs and constables who have arrested coin-clippers or seized persons found with rough clippings or silver plates, and who, for a reward, have released them and concealed the arrest.
[5] De hiis qui emerint per se ipsos vel per alios retonsuram quandam vel platas cuiuscumque retonsure scienter.
Concerning those who have knowingly purchased, either personally or through others, any quantity of clippings or plates of clipped silver.
[6] De hiis qui cambiaverint bonam monetam scienter cum retonsura pro maiori numero habendo de moneta retonsa et qui hoc fecerunt frequenter quasi mercatores de die in diem.
Concerning those who knowingly have exchanged good coin for clipped coin so as to receive a greater number of pieces, and who have done this frequently, like merchants trading from day to day.
[7] Item de aliis hiis cambiatoribus qui aliquando et raro hoc fecerint.
Likewise concerning other exchangers who have done this only occasionally and rarely.
[8] De hiis qui emerint platas tonsure non affinitas et non scienter de retonsoribus.
Concerning those who have bought plates of clippings without malice and without knowing that they came from coin-clippers.
[9] De hiis qui aliis tradiderunt denarios suos cambiatoribus predictis qui frequenter cambiaverint ut supra pro habendo partem lucri inde provenientis.
Concerning those who have delivered their pennies to the aforesaid exchangers, who dealt frequently in such trade, in order to share in the profit arising therefrom.
[10] De fundatoribus qui retonsuras vel platas huiusmodi affinaverint.
Concerning founders or refiners who have smelted or refined such clippings or plates.
[11] De vicecomitibus constabulariis et ballivis quibuscumque qui mercedem ceperint per sic quod parcerent et fingerent attachiare suspectos vel eos attachiaverint sive christianos sive judeos pro levi suspicione quos non invenerint seisitos cum retonsura et ipsos pro mercede deliberaverint.
Concerning sheriffs, constables, and any other bailiffs who have taken bribes to spare suspects, or who have pretended to arrest them—whether Christians or Jews—on slight suspicion, though not found in possession of clippings, and who have released them again for a payment.
[12] De justiciariis et inquisitoribus habentibus potestatem per brevia regis ad inquirendum de huiusmodi retonsoribus et pro mercede dissimulaverint facere officium suum et quid et quantum ceperint et a quibus.
Concerning justices and inquisitors who, having royal writs empowering them to inquire into coin-clipping, have, for reward, neglected to perform their duty—and as to what and how much they have taken, and from whom.
[13] De hiis qui ingressi fuerunt domos et mansiones judeorum captorum et in prisona detentorum postquam fuerunt scrutate et capte in manum regis et thesaurum cum aliis bonis et catallis in eisdem dimissis asportaverunt furtive et quid et quantum.
Concerning those who entered the houses and dwellings of Jews who had been arrested and imprisoned, after such premises had been searched and taken into the king’s hand, and who stealthily carried away treasure, goods, and chattels left therein—and as to what and how much they took.
[14] De christianis qui habuerint in custodia sua in octabis sancti martini proximo preteriti archas jocalia argentum scripta et alias res quascumque ex tradicione judeorum et quorum et quid et quantum et ad quas manus devenerint et maxime qui ea concelaverint.
Concerning Christians who, on the octave of St Martin last past, have had in their keeping chests, jewels, silver, writings, or any other goods delivered to them by Jews—specifying whose they were, what and how much, into whose hands they have come, and especially those who have concealed them.
[15] De fugitivis qui occasione tonsure et transgressionum praedictarum subtraxerint se ubi devenerunt et de catallis eorum et de terris et tenementis eorum si que habuerint.
Concerning fugitives who, because of coin-clipping or the aforesaid offences, have fled and where they have gone, and concerning their chattels, lands, and tenements, if they possessed any.
[16] De hiis qui viderunt et manifeste perceperint qui fuerint retonsores et ipsos non accusaverint regi vel aliis ballivis suis cum quilibet de populo ad hoc tenerentur licet expresse non consentirent.
Concerning those who have seen and clearly perceived who were the coin-clippers, yet have not accused them to the king or his bailiffs, although every person of the realm was bound to do so, even if they did not expressly consent to the crime.
[17] De hiis qui secretum per summonicionem sibi injunctam super hiis qui premissa contingunt ante capcionem judeorum revelabant et quid et cui et quomodo.
Concerning those who, having been ordered by summons to keep secrecy regarding matters touching the foregoing offences before the arrest of the Jews, revealed that secret—and to whom, and what, and in what manner.
Explicunt capitula de tonsura monete.
Here end the chapters concerning the clipping of coin.
Operating under this authority, the justices moved quickly. By May 1279, they had accomplished what the general eyre had failed to do over many years. In Bury St Edmunds, royal officers even violated the abbey’s ancient liberties to arrest goldsmiths and mint officials, while in Canterbury and London the king’s agents seized the archbishop’s mint and examined its coinage.
Jewish Property and Royal Confiscation
Miniature showing the expulsion of Jews following the Edict of Expulsion by Edward I of England (18 July 1290). Marginal Illustration from the Rochester Chronicle – British Library, Cotton Nero D. II. fol.83v.
Beyond punishing coin-clipping, the campaign served another purpose: to facilitate the seizure of Jewish property. Many Christians had seized or been entrusted with Jewish goods during the arrests of 1278, thus obstructing Crown plans to tallage or confiscate those assets. The justices were therefore ordered to determine what property had been taken, and by whom. This policy reflected the long-standing Angevin maxim, “What is the Jew’s is the king’s.” The Jews, regarded as royal property, were tolerated only so long as they provided steady revenue to the Crown.
Edward’s financial motives were further revealed in his letter of 3 January 1279, calling for the excommunication of those withholding Jewish goods that rightfully belonged to the king. The Capitula also included provisions for identifying Christians who had entered Jewish homes, seized treasure or bonds, or profited from Jewish chests and jewellery.
Entrapment and the Mass Executions
The efficiency of the 1279 inquest was aided by the efforts of Henry of Winchester, a Jewish convert who, after being pardoned for dealing in clipped coin and fused silver, betrayed his former associates. His testimony helped convict large numbers of Jewish suspects.
By early 1279, reports suggest that as many as 600 Jews were imprisoned in the Tower of London, and that 269 Jews, along with 29 Christians, were executed, hanged at the Guildhall in London before Justices Penecestre, Helyun, and Cobham. The campaign devastated the financial foundations of English Jewry, rendering them poor sources of future taxation and unable to compete with Italian and Cahorsin merchants.
Aftermath and Legacy
Although the judicial campaign concluded by mid-1279, its consequences endured. The recoinage and confiscations enriched the Crown and financed Edward’s Welsh wars, while the Jewish community, economically ruined, never recovered. Historians have often regarded this event as a prelude to the expulsion of 1290, when Edward I finally banished the Jews from England.
The Capitula de tonsura monete survived long after its immediate purpose had passed. Non-official copies were transcribed into the registers of St Edmund’s Abbey and Canterbury Cathedral during the 1280s, and later appeared in Statuta Angliae manuscripts. Its provisions influenced subsequent legislation on coinage and corruption, even after the Jews’ expulsion.
In 1289, the king issued new articles against coin-clipping and counterfeiting, possibly derived from the original Capitula. These measures, enforced by Gregory de Rokesley and Baruncinus Galteri, extended to London and beyond. A version of these articles later appeared in the legal treatise Fleta under the title De retonsoribus monete, showing the enduring impact of Edward’s judicial experiment.
Dr Lorris Chevalier, who has a Ph.D. in medieval literature, is a historical advisor for movies, including The Last Duel and Napoleon. Click here to view his website.
By Lorris Chevalier
The great coin-clipping scandal of 1278–9 stands among the most dramatic and tragic episodes in the history of England’s medieval Jewish community. Under King Edward I, the Crown launched an extensive judicial and financial campaign against alleged coin-clippers, which are those accused of shaving or clipping small quantities of silver from English pennies. In November 1278, the king ordered the mass arrest of more than 1,178 Jews across the realm, along with numerous Christians, on charges of debasing the coinage. This event signalled not merely a royal response to monetary crime, but a calculated act of fiscal and political policy, with devastating consequences for English Jewry.
Since the reign of Henry III, responsibility for judicial matters involving the Jews had fallen under the Exchequer of the Jews, which exercised jurisdiction over Jews accused of monetary offences. As early as 1238, Sir William le Breton and two other justices of the Jews were assigned to investigate and try cases of coin-clipping, aided by eight Jewish assessors from London and York. Despite these early measures, the problem of coin debasement persisted.
In 1247, Henry III ordered that the “short cross” on the reverse of the English penny be extended to the coin’s edge: a measure intended to make clipping easier to detect. Yet by the beginning of Edward I’s reign, even the “long cross” pennies had become so worn through use and wilful mutilation that coin-clipping appeared to be on the rise. The Hundred Rolls inquiry of 1274–5 reflected growing unease, recording rumours of coin-clipping, counterfeiting, and the illicit trade in clipped coins, particularly among the Jews of Bristol. While these early accusations were largely unsubstantiated, the suspicion laid groundwork for later royal action.
A Monetary and Judicial Crisis
A clipped silver solid long-cross Halfpenny of Edward I or II. Photo Cambridgeshire County Council / Wikimedia Commons
By the mid-1270s, cases of coin-clipping and related offences multiplied in the plea rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews. This increase coincided with the prohibition of usury under the Statutes of Jewry (1275), which had already curtailed Jewish lending activities and strained their economic survival. At the same time, Edward I faced a genuine monetary crisis: by 1278, the English coinage had become so degraded that contracts increasingly stipulated payment in “good, round, unclipped coin”.
Coin-clipping was now being treated as a capital offence, equated with high treason for debasing the king’s image. Yet Edward’s motives extended beyond preserving monetary integrity. As with much Angevin policy toward the Jews, there was a fiscal incentive, the prospect of large fines, forfeitures, and confiscations following successful prosecutions. To pursue the issue rigorously, Edward turned to commissions of oyer and terminer which are judicial bodies appointed “to hear and determine” specific categories of offences.
The Commissions of 1279
On 5 January 1279, at Windsor, the king issued letters patent creating three special commissions of oyer and terminer. Each consisted of three royal justices assigned to distinct regions of the kingdom.
These commissions operated alongside the general eyre of 1278–9, enabling the Crown to process cases more efficiently. The justices were empowered to conduct inquests into coin-clipping, receive jury presentments, try pleas of the Crown, and render judgments. They were also issued the Capitula de tonsura monete – a detailed set of seventeen articles defining the scope of their investigations.
The Capitula de tonsura monete
The Capitula provided an exhaustive list of suspected offences, from clipping coins and exchanging clipped silver to bribery, concealment, and corruption among royal officials. It targeted not only Jews and Christians accused of monetary trespass but also sheriffs, bailiffs, and justices suspected of taking bribes or concealing crimes. Even founders and goldsmiths who refined clippings or exchanged good money for bad fell under suspicion. In practice, many of these officials and artisans were arrested alongside Jewish moneyers and lenders.
Here is the full text with its translation:
Incipiunt capitula de tonsura monete.
Here begin the chapters concerning the clipping of coin.
[1] De tonsura monete tam de judeis quam christianis.
Concerning the clipping of coin committed both by Jews and by Christians.
[2] De hiis qui tradiderunt denarios suos retonsoribus pro habendo lucro tonsure.
Concerning those who have delivered their pennies to coin-clippers in order to gain profit from the clippings.
[3] De vicecomitibus constabulariis et aliis ballivis regis vel alterius qui sub se habuerint in custodia sua infra ballivas suas judeos quoscumque et qui consenserint eisdem et gratis permiserint facere retonsuras pro certa mercede per certam conventionem factam capienda.
Concerning sheriffs, constables, and other bailiffs of the king or of others who have had Jews in their custody within their jurisdictions, and who have consented to them and willingly allowed them to clip coin in return for an agreed payment under a certain bargain.
[4] De vicecomitibus constabulariis qui retonsuras ceperint vel attachiaverint cum retonsura cruda vel in platis seisitos et qui pro mercede eos deliberaverint et attachiamentum illud concelaverint.
Concerning sheriffs and constables who have arrested coin-clippers or seized persons found with rough clippings or silver plates, and who, for a reward, have released them and concealed the arrest.
[5] De hiis qui emerint per se ipsos vel per alios retonsuram quandam vel platas cuiuscumque retonsure scienter.
Concerning those who have knowingly purchased, either personally or through others, any quantity of clippings or plates of clipped silver.
[6] De hiis qui cambiaverint bonam monetam scienter cum retonsura pro maiori numero habendo de moneta retonsa et qui hoc fecerunt frequenter quasi mercatores de die in diem.
Concerning those who knowingly have exchanged good coin for clipped coin so as to receive a greater number of pieces, and who have done this frequently, like merchants trading from day to day.
[7] Item de aliis hiis cambiatoribus qui aliquando et raro hoc fecerint.
Likewise concerning other exchangers who have done this only occasionally and rarely.
[8] De hiis qui emerint platas tonsure non affinitas et non scienter de retonsoribus.
Concerning those who have bought plates of clippings without malice and without knowing that they came from coin-clippers.
[9] De hiis qui aliis tradiderunt denarios suos cambiatoribus predictis qui frequenter cambiaverint ut supra pro habendo partem lucri inde provenientis.
Concerning those who have delivered their pennies to the aforesaid exchangers, who dealt frequently in such trade, in order to share in the profit arising therefrom.
[10] De fundatoribus qui retonsuras vel platas huiusmodi affinaverint.
Concerning founders or refiners who have smelted or refined such clippings or plates.
[11] De vicecomitibus constabulariis et ballivis quibuscumque qui mercedem ceperint per sic quod parcerent et fingerent attachiare suspectos vel eos attachiaverint sive christianos sive judeos pro levi suspicione quos non invenerint seisitos cum retonsura et ipsos pro mercede deliberaverint.
Concerning sheriffs, constables, and any other bailiffs who have taken bribes to spare suspects, or who have pretended to arrest them—whether Christians or Jews—on slight suspicion, though not found in possession of clippings, and who have released them again for a payment.
[12] De justiciariis et inquisitoribus habentibus potestatem per brevia regis ad inquirendum de huiusmodi retonsoribus et pro mercede dissimulaverint facere officium suum et quid et quantum ceperint et a quibus.
Concerning justices and inquisitors who, having royal writs empowering them to inquire into coin-clipping, have, for reward, neglected to perform their duty—and as to what and how much they have taken, and from whom.
[13] De hiis qui ingressi fuerunt domos et mansiones judeorum captorum et in prisona detentorum postquam fuerunt scrutate et capte in manum regis et thesaurum cum aliis bonis et catallis in eisdem dimissis asportaverunt furtive et quid et quantum.
Concerning those who entered the houses and dwellings of Jews who had been arrested and imprisoned, after such premises had been searched and taken into the king’s hand, and who stealthily carried away treasure, goods, and chattels left therein—and as to what and how much they took.
[14] De christianis qui habuerint in custodia sua in octabis sancti martini proximo preteriti archas jocalia argentum scripta et alias res quascumque ex tradicione judeorum et quorum et quid et quantum et ad quas manus devenerint et maxime qui ea concelaverint.
Concerning Christians who, on the octave of St Martin last past, have had in their keeping chests, jewels, silver, writings, or any other goods delivered to them by Jews—specifying whose they were, what and how much, into whose hands they have come, and especially those who have concealed them.
[15] De fugitivis qui occasione tonsure et transgressionum praedictarum subtraxerint se ubi devenerunt et de catallis eorum et de terris et tenementis eorum si que habuerint.
Concerning fugitives who, because of coin-clipping or the aforesaid offences, have fled and where they have gone, and concerning their chattels, lands, and tenements, if they possessed any.
[16] De hiis qui viderunt et manifeste perceperint qui fuerint retonsores et ipsos non accusaverint regi vel aliis ballivis suis cum quilibet de populo ad hoc tenerentur licet expresse non consentirent.
Concerning those who have seen and clearly perceived who were the coin-clippers, yet have not accused them to the king or his bailiffs, although every person of the realm was bound to do so, even if they did not expressly consent to the crime.
[17] De hiis qui secretum per summonicionem sibi injunctam super hiis qui premissa contingunt ante capcionem judeorum revelabant et quid et cui et quomodo.
Concerning those who, having been ordered by summons to keep secrecy regarding matters touching the foregoing offences before the arrest of the Jews, revealed that secret—and to whom, and what, and in what manner.
Explicunt capitula de tonsura monete.
Here end the chapters concerning the clipping of coin.
Operating under this authority, the justices moved quickly. By May 1279, they had accomplished what the general eyre had failed to do over many years. In Bury St Edmunds, royal officers even violated the abbey’s ancient liberties to arrest goldsmiths and mint officials, while in Canterbury and London the king’s agents seized the archbishop’s mint and examined its coinage.
Jewish Property and Royal Confiscation
Marginal Illustration from the Rochester Chronicle – British Library, Cotton Nero D. II. fol.83v.
Beyond punishing coin-clipping, the campaign served another purpose: to facilitate the seizure of Jewish property. Many Christians had seized or been entrusted with Jewish goods during the arrests of 1278, thus obstructing Crown plans to tallage or confiscate those assets. The justices were therefore ordered to determine what property had been taken, and by whom. This policy reflected the long-standing Angevin maxim, “What is the Jew’s is the king’s.” The Jews, regarded as royal property, were tolerated only so long as they provided steady revenue to the Crown.
Edward’s financial motives were further revealed in his letter of 3 January 1279, calling for the excommunication of those withholding Jewish goods that rightfully belonged to the king. The Capitula also included provisions for identifying Christians who had entered Jewish homes, seized treasure or bonds, or profited from Jewish chests and jewellery.
Entrapment and the Mass Executions
The efficiency of the 1279 inquest was aided by the efforts of Henry of Winchester, a Jewish convert who, after being pardoned for dealing in clipped coin and fused silver, betrayed his former associates. His testimony helped convict large numbers of Jewish suspects.
By early 1279, reports suggest that as many as 600 Jews were imprisoned in the Tower of London, and that 269 Jews, along with 29 Christians, were executed, hanged at the Guildhall in London before Justices Penecestre, Helyun, and Cobham. The campaign devastated the financial foundations of English Jewry, rendering them poor sources of future taxation and unable to compete with Italian and Cahorsin merchants.
Aftermath and Legacy
Although the judicial campaign concluded by mid-1279, its consequences endured. The recoinage and confiscations enriched the Crown and financed Edward’s Welsh wars, while the Jewish community, economically ruined, never recovered. Historians have often regarded this event as a prelude to the expulsion of 1290, when Edward I finally banished the Jews from England.
The Capitula de tonsura monete survived long after its immediate purpose had passed. Non-official copies were transcribed into the registers of St Edmund’s Abbey and Canterbury Cathedral during the 1280s, and later appeared in Statuta Angliae manuscripts. Its provisions influenced subsequent legislation on coinage and corruption, even after the Jews’ expulsion.
In 1289, the king issued new articles against coin-clipping and counterfeiting, possibly derived from the original Capitula. These measures, enforced by Gregory de Rokesley and Baruncinus Galteri, extended to London and beyond. A version of these articles later appeared in the legal treatise Fleta under the title De retonsoribus monete, showing the enduring impact of Edward’s judicial experiment.
Dr Lorris Chevalier, who has a Ph.D. in medieval literature, is a historical advisor for movies, including The Last Duel and Napoleon. Click here to view his website.
Click here to read more from Lorris Chevalier
Further Readings:
Don C. Skemer, “King Edward I’s Articles of Inquest on the Jews and Coin‐Clipping, 1279,” Historical Research, Volume 72, Issue 177 (1999), 1–26.
Top Image: Detail of a penny of Edward I – photo by Jerry “Woody” / Wikimedia Commons
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts