diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75879-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75879-h/75879-h.htm | 2393 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75879-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 476270 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75879-h/images/i_062fp.jpg | bin | 0 -> 26815 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75879-h/images/i_frontispiece.jpg | bin | 0 -> 119179 bytes |
4 files changed, 2393 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75879-h/75879-h.htm b/75879-h/75879-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6624b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/75879-h/75879-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2393 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + Essay and Speech On Jewish Disabilities | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + + h1,h2,h3 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; + text-indent: 1em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} +table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } + +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; + color: #A9A9A9; +} /* page numbers */ + +.blockquot { + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; + font-size: 85%; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +/* Images */ + +img { + max-width: 100%; + height: auto; +} +img.w100 {width: 100%;} + + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; + page-break-inside: avoid; + max-width: 100%; +} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +.fs70 {font-size: 70%} +.fs80 {font-size: 80%} +.fs90 {font-size: 90%} +.fs120 {font-size: 120%} + +.no-indent {text-indent: 0em;} +.bold {font-weight: bold;} +.wsp {word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.lh {line-height: 1.5em;} + +h2 {font-size: 130%; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.6em; word-spacing: .3em;} +h3 {font-size: 110%; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.6em; word-spacing: .3em;} + +/* Illustration classes */ +.illowp85 {width: 85%;} + + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75879 ***</div> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 85%"> +<img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="" data-role="presentation"> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<figure class="figcenter illowp85" id="i_frontispiece" style="max-width: 53.3125em;"> + <img class="w100" src="images/i_frontispiece.jpg" alt="" data-role="presentation"> +</figure> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h1><em>ESSAY AND SPEECH<br> +<span class="fs70">ON</span><br> +JEWISH DISABILITIES</em></h1> + +<p class="center no-indent lh wsp"><span class="fs80">BY</span><br> +<span class="fs120">LORD MACAULAY</span></p> +<br> + +<p class="center no-indent fs90 wsp">EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY</p> + +<p class="center no-indent fs120 wsp">ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A.<br> +<span class="fs70">AND THE</span><br> +REV. S. LEVY, M.A.</p> +<br> + +<p class="center no-indent fs90"><em>Second Edition</em></p> +<br> + +<p class="center no-indent lh wsp">Printed for the<br> +<em>Jewish Historical Society of England<br> +By</em> <span class="fs120">BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.</span><br> +EDINBURGH<br> +1910</p> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center no-indent fs120"><em>NOTE</em></p> +</div> + + +<p class="no-indent"><em>The authors and editors of all volumes +published by the Jewish Historical Society +of England accept full and sole responsibility +for the views expressed by them.</em></p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> +</div> + +<table class="autotable lh"> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdr fs70">PAGE</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Editors’ Introduction</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Macaulay’s Essay</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Macaulay’s Speech</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Editors’ Notes</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="ILLUSTRATIONS">ILLUSTRATIONS</h2> +</div> + + + +<table class="autotable lh"> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Portrait of Macaulay</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><em><a href="#i_frontispiece">Frontispiece</a></em></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" colspan="2">The frontispiece is a reduced photograph of the portrait by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A. The original is in the National Portrait Gallery, London (No. 453).</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap"><br>Macaulay’s Autograph</span></td> +<td class="tdr"><em>To face page <a href="#signature">62</a></em></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" colspan="2">A facsimile reproduction of Macaulay’s signature at the end of a letter to Macvey Napier, Editor of the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite>, dated 10th Feb. 1839. The original is in the British Museum (Add. MS. 34,620 f. 83 b).</td> +</tr> +</table> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="INTRODUCTION">INTRODUCTION</h2> +</div> + +<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">The</span> first edition of this reprint of Macaulay’s +famous essay and speech on the removal of +Jewish disabilities was timed for publication +on December 28, 1909, the fiftieth anniversary +of their author’s death. It was +intended to serve a double object. In the +first place, it was a tribute to the memory +of Macaulay in grateful recognition of his +strenuous advocacy of the cause of Jewish +emancipation; and in the second place, it +was designed to be a further memento of the +celebration organised by the Jewish Historical +Society of England in 1908, on the occasion +of the jubilee of the admission of Jews into +Parliament.</p> + +<p>Neither the essay nor the speech was +Macaulay’s first contribution to the cause +of Jewish emancipation. Thomas Babington +(afterwards Lord) Macaulay (1800-1859) +entered the House of Commons at the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> +General Election of 1830. On April 5, in +that same year, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Robert +Grant moved to bring in a Bill to remove +Jewish political disabilities. The motion +was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis. When +Inglis resumed his seat, “Sir James Mackintosh +and Mr. Macaulay,” as Hansard +reports, “rose together, but the latter, being +a new Member, was called for by the +House.” Thus, Macaulay’s maiden speech +was delivered in behalf of the Jewish +cause. It made considerable stir. Sir James +Mackintosh took part in the debate later, +and after complimenting the young orator, +said: “I do not rise, therefore, to supply +any defects in that address, for indeed there +were none that I could find; but it is +principally to absolve my own conscience +that I offer myself to the attention of the +House.”</p> + +<p>Writing to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Isaac +Lyon Goldsmid on April 13, 1830, Lord +Holland suggested “that it might promote +your cause to print a correct copy of the late +triumphant debate in the Commons in the +shape of a pamphlet during holidays. If Mr. +Grant, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Macaulay,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> +and Dr. Lushington could be prevailed upon +to correct their speeches for that publication, +it would be a valuable manual for all those +who in or out of Parliament are disposed to +urge the facts and reasons in your favour” +(<cite>Transactions of the Jewish Historical +Society of England</cite>, iv. 158). This advice +does not seem to have been followed, nor +did Macaulay himself reprint this particular +speech, but it was included in Vizetelly’s +two volumes of Macaulay’s Speeches, published +in 1853, much to their author’s +indignation. The speech occupies the first +place in Vol. I. In the second volume of +Vizetelly’s edition is another speech by +Macaulay, delivered in the House on March +31, 1841, on the Jews’ Declaration Bill. +Angered by Vizetelly’s publication, Macaulay +himself brought out an edition of his +speeches. He included neither of the two +speeches which appear in Vizetelly, but +inserted the more powerful and effective +speech delivered on April 17, 1833.</p> + +<p>The production of the essay seems in the +first instance to have been due to Macaulay’s +own initiative. For on April 29, 1830, a +little over three weeks after the 1830 debate,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> +he wrote to Macvey Napier, the editor of +the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite>: “If, as I rather fear, +we should be beaten in Parliament this year +about the Jews, a short pungent article on +that question might be useful and taking. It +ought to come within the compass of a single +sheet” (<cite>Selection from the Correspondence of the +late Macvey Napier</cite>, London, 1879, p. 80). +In the course of the next few months +Macaulay was strengthened in his conviction +of the probable efficacy of an essay on the +Jewish case by the representations which +were made to him in the interval, apparently +as an indirect result of Lord Holland’s original +suggestion for the reprint in pamphlet form +of the debate in the House of Commons on +April 5, 1830. Thus in another letter to +Macvey Napier, dated October 16, 1830, he +stated: “The Jews have been urging me to +say something about their claims; and I +really think that the question might be discussed, +both on general and on particular +grounds, in a very attractive manner. What +do you think of this plan?” (ibid., pp. 93, 94). +On November 27, 1830, he wrote again: +“I have only a minute to write. I will +send you an article on the Jews next week”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> +(ibid., p. 97). And finally on December 17, +1830, Macaulay sent the article as promised. +“I send you an article on the Jews.... +I am very busy, or I should have sent you +this Jew article before. It is short, and +carelessly written, perhaps, as to style, but +certainly as to penmanship” (ibid., p. 98). +The essay appeared in the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite> +in the following month, January 1831, and thus +stands in date between the maiden speech of +1830 and the speech of 1833. In the latter +year the House of Commons passed Mr. +Grant’s Bill through all its stages, though it +was not till 1860 that the victory was formally +won, after a practical triumph in 1858. It is +curious to note that, in the debate of 1830, +Mr. Grant appealed to the Commons to +concede justice to the Jews promptly, and +not let the matter hang in the balance for +thirty years, as had been done with Catholic +Emancipation. The very interval feared by +Mr. Grant separated his original motion +from its final ratification. Macaulay’s essay +played a great part in converting English +public opinion. So popular had this essay +become, so convincing its plea, that it was +regarded as the main statement of the Jewish<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> +case. Edition after edition of the volume +containing the essay was called for and +exhausted. So late as September 1847, when +the Tory organ, the <cite>Quarterly Review</cite>, +futilely attempted to set up a reasonable +case against the Jewish claim, the whole of +the argument was directed towards rebutting +Macaulay’s essay.</p> + +<p>The present edition is a verbal reprint of +Macaulay’s own revision. In the notes attention +is drawn to some of the modifications +which the author introduced, but a few +words may here be said on one or two +points in which Macaulay’s revision is particularly +interesting. Thus, in the speech as +reported in Hansard (3rd Series, Vol. XVII., +col. 232), there occurs this passage, deleted in +the revision:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>“No charge could be brought against the Jews +of evincing any disposition to attack the Christian +religion, or to offend its professors. It was true +that one imputation of such a nature had lately +been thrown out in that House, but it was entirely +unfounded. <em>He had seen a great deal of the worship +of the Jews</em>, and he had heard a great deal on the +subject from others, and <em>from all that he had seen</em> +and all that he had heard, he was able to say, +without the slightest fear of contradiction, that +there was no part of the Jewish worship which was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> +not only not insulting to Christians, but in which +Christians might not, without the least difficulty, +join.”</p> +</div> + +<p>The imputation had been made in the +House by William Cobbett, on March 1, +1833. The most noteworthy point is, +however, the sentences which have been +italicised. They give direct evidence that +Macaulay must often have visited the synagogue +services.</p> + +<p>In the revision of the essay, Macaulay, by +omitting a couple of sentences, laid himself +open to a charge of formal fallacy. Professor +F. C. Montague (in his edition of the Essays, +Vol. I. p. 289) writes: “When Macaulay +asserts the identity of the two propositions—It +is right that some person or persons should +possess political power, and, Some person or +persons must have a right to political power—he +commits an obvious fallacy.” But in the +<cite>Edinburgh Review</cite> Macaulay continued: “It +will hardly be denied that government is a +means for the attainment of an end. If men +have a right to the end, they have a right to +this—that the means shall be such as will +accomplish the end.” There is thus no fallacy +in the argument as Macaulay intended it to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> +be understood. It is equally difficult to admit +the validity of Professor Montague’s further +comment: “Neither is it true in all cases, +and without any qualification, that differences +of religion are absolutely irrelevant to the +bestowal of political power. In some cases +the differences of thought and feeling between +the adherents of different creeds are so many +and so considerable that harmonious co-operation +in the same body politic becomes almost +inconceivable. Whilst Mohammedanism and +Hinduism remain what they are, it is scarcely +conceivable that Mohammedans and Hindus +could really blend in one constituent body +for the choice of a parliament which should +govern India.” It remains to be proved by +experience whether the results of Lord +Morley’s constitutional reforms will not belie +this fear, and whether the joint admission of +various sects to political responsibility will +not, in the end, mitigate sectarian animosities, +under the impulse of a common striving for +the common good. And Macaulay’s point is +missed by Professor Montague. Religion <em>as +such</em> must not be made a bar to admission to +political rights. Macaulay did not argue that +power should be placed in the hands of those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> +unfit to use it for the general good. But +assuming the fitness proved, their religion +must not be a ground for exclusion. Every +one admitted that the fitness had been proved +in the case of the Jews. Inglis, who preceded +Macaulay, and, of course, on the +opposite side, said in the 1833 debate: “He +believed that there was no portion of the +community that furnished a smaller relative +proportion of criminals, or that were better +conducted, than the Jews were.” Another +opponent of the Bill, Mr. Halcomb, said: +“He admitted that the Jews were a body +against whose moral character nothing could +be adduced; that they were good and loyal +citizens of the king.” Mr. William Roche +(a Catholic supporter of the Bill) might +well comment on all this: “If, Sir, the Jews +have proved themselves good subjects in this +country, and in all other countries where +they have been domesticated and admitted to +political freedom, that is all we have a right +to look to, leaving to them, as to every other +sect, perfect liberty of conscience in their +spiritual concerns.” Of course Professor +Montague does not dispute the validity of +Macaulay’s plea as applied to <em>the Jews</em>. He<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> +describes the success of the arguments in the +essay as complete, and their justice as generally +admitted.</p> + +<p>J. Cotter Morison, in his life of Macaulay +in the “English Men of Letters” +series, advanced the view “that Macaulay’s +natural aptitude was rather oratorical than +literary.... It is no exaggeration to say +that as an orator he moves in a higher intellectual +plane than he does as a writer.... +In his speeches we find him nearly without +exception laying down broad luminous principles, +based upon reason, and those boundless +stores of historical illustration, from which he +argues with equal brevity and force. It is +interesting to compare his treatment of the +same subject in an essay and a speech. His +speech on the Maynooth grant and his essay +on Mr. Gladstone’s <cite>Church and State</cite> deal +with practically the same question, and few +persons would hesitate to give the preference +to the speech” (pp. 131, 132). Jewish disabilities +is another subject which occasioned +both an essay and a speech from Macaulay. +Here, too, the speech, by comparison, must +be judged to be more effective than the +essay. Certainly there is no passage in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> +essay which equals in dignity and strength +and eloquence the following sentences in the +speech:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>“Nobody knows better than my honourable +friend the Member for the University of Oxford +that there is nothing in their national character +which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. +He knows that, in the infancy of civilisation, when +our island was as savage as New Guinea, when +letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, +when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was +afterwards the site of Rome, this contemned people +had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their +splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, +their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen +and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their +historians and their poets. What nation ever contended +more manfully against overwhelming odds +for its independence and religion? What nation +ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of +what may be accomplished by a brave despair? +And if, in the course of many centuries, the oppressed +descendants of warriors and sages have +degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, +while excluded from the blessings of law, and +bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they have +contracted some of the vices of outlaws and of +slaves, shall we consider this as matter of reproach +to them? Shall we not rather consider it as +matter of shame and remorse to ourselves? Let +us do justice to them. Let us open to them the +door of the House of Commons. Let us open to +them every career in which ability and energy can +be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not +presume to say that there is no genius among the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> +countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the +descendants of the Maccabees” (<em>Infra</em>, pp. 60, +61).</p> +</div> + +<p>We may at this distance of time prefer the +speech to the essay. Nevertheless, we cannot +but be profoundly grateful for both, and are +bound to recognise and appreciate the deep +influence they both exercised in persuading +public opinion to grant the Jews of England +complete equality before the law with all +other denominations. Macaulay was brought +up in a home which was the headquarters of +the movement for the abolition of slavery. +He carried the lessons of his youth into the +work of his manhood. He championed the +cause of the persecuted and the wronged in +various human relations. But nothing that +he did has raised a more enduring monument +to his name than his enthusiastic and +triumphant advocacy of the cause of Jewish +freedom.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak bold" id="Civil_Disabilities_of_the_Jews">Civil Disabilities of the Jews</h2> +</div> + +<p class="center no-indent fs80">FROM</p> + +<p class="center no-indent wsp">“<span class="smcap">The Edinburgh Review</span>,” <em>Jan. 1831</em></p> + +<p class="center no-indent wsp"><em>Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations<br> +affecting Jews in England</em></p> + +<p class="center no-indent fs80 wsp">8vo. London: 1829<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> +<br> + +<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">The</span> distinguished member of the House of +Commons who, towards the close of the late +Parliament, brought forward a proposition for +the relief of the Jews, has given notice of +his intention to renew it.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> The force of +reason, in the last session, carried the measure +through one stage, in spite of the opposition +of power. Reason and power are now on the +same side; and we have little doubt that +they will conjointly achieve a decisive victory.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> +In order to contribute our share to the success +of just principles, we propose to pass in +review, as rapidly as possible, some of the arguments, +or phrases claiming to be arguments, +which have been employed to vindicate a +system full of absurdity and injustice.</p> + +<p>The constitution, it is said, is essentially +Christian; and therefore to admit Jews to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> +office is to destroy the constitution. Nor +is the Jew injured by being excluded from +political power. For no man has any right +to power. A man has a right to his property; +a man has a right to be protected from personal +injury. These rights the law allows to +the Jew; and with these rights it would be +atrocious to interfere. But it is a mere +matter of favour to admit any man to political +power; and no man can justly complain +that he is shut out from it.</p> + +<p>We cannot but admire the ingenuity of +this contrivance for shifting the burden of +the proof from those to whom it properly +belongs, and who would, we suspect, find +it rather cumbersome. Surely no Christian +can deny that every human being has a +right to be allowed every gratification which +produces no harm to others, and to be spared +every mortification which produces no good +to others. Is it not a source of mortification +to a class of men that they are excluded from +political power? If it be, they have, on +Christian principles, a right to be freed from +that mortification, unless it can be shown +that their exclusion is necessary for the +averting of some greater evil. The presumption +is evidently in favour of toleration. +It is for the prosecutor to make out his case.</p> + +<p>The strange argument which we are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> +considering would prove too much even +for those who advance it. If no man has +a right to political power, then neither Jew +nor Gentile has such a right. The whole +foundation of government is taken away. +But if government be taken away, the property +and the persons of men are insecure; +and it is acknowledged that men have a +right to their property and to personal security. +If it be right that the property of +men should be protected, and if this can +only be done by means of government, then +it must be right that government should +exist. Now there cannot be government +unless some person or persons possess political +power. Therefore it is right that some +person or persons should possess political +power. That is to say, some person or +persons must have a right to political power.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> + +<p>It is because men are not in the habit +of considering what the end of government +is, that Catholic disabilities and Jewish disabilities +have been suffered to exist so long. +We hear of essentially Protestant governments +and essentially Christian governments, +words which mean just as much as essentially +Protestant cookery, or essentially Christian +horsemanship. Government exists for the +purpose of keeping the peace, for the purpose +of compelling us to settle our disputes<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> +by arbitration instead of settling them by +blows, for the purpose of compelling us +to supply our wants by industry instead of +supplying them by rapine. This is the only +operation for which the machinery of government +is peculiarly adapted, the only operation +which wise governments ever propose +to themselves as their chief object. If there +is any class of people who are not interested, +or who do not think themselves interested, +in the security of property and the maintenance +of order, that class ought to have no +share of the powers which exist for the purpose +of securing property and maintaining +order. But why a man should be less fit to +exercise those powers because he wears a beard, +because he does not eat ham, because he goes +to the synagogue on Saturdays instead of going +to the church on Sundays, we cannot conceive.</p> + +<p>The points of difference between Christianity +and Judaism have very much to do +with a man’s fitness to be a bishop or a +rabbi. But they have no more to do with +his fitness to be a magistrate, a legislator, +or a minister of finance, than with his fitness +to be a cobbler. Nobody has ever thought +of compelling cobblers to make any declaration +on the true faith of a Christian. Any +man would rather have his shoes mended +by a heretical cobbler than by a person who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> +had subscribed all the thirty-nine articles, but +had never handled an awl. Men act thus, +not because they are indifferent to religion, +but because they do not see what religion +has to do with the mending of their shoes. +Yet religion has as much to do with the +mending of shoes as with the budget and the +army estimates. We have surely had several +signal proofs within the last twenty years +that a very good Christian may be a very +bad Chancellor of the Exchequer.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> + +<p>But it would be monstrous, say the persecutors, +that Jews should legislate for a +Christian community. This is a palpable +misrepresentation. What is proposed is, +not that the Jews should legislate for a +Christian community, but that a legislature +composed of Christians and Jews should +legislate for a community composed of +Christians and Jews. On nine hundred +and ninety-nine questions out of a thousand, +on all questions of police, of finance, of civil +and criminal law, of foreign policy, the Jew, +as a Jew, has no interest hostile to that of the +Christian, or even to that of the Churchman. +On questions relating to the ecclesiastical +establishment, the Jew and the Churchman +may differ. But they cannot differ more +widely than the Catholic and the Churchman, +or the Independent and the Churchman.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> +The principle that Churchmen ought +to monopolise the whole power of the state +would at least have an intelligible meaning. +The principle that Christians ought to monopolise +it has no meaning at all. For no +question connected with the ecclesiastical +institutions of the country can possibly +come before Parliament, with respect to +which there will not be as wide a difference +between Christians as there can be between +any Christian and any Jew.</p> + +<p>In fact, the Jews are not now excluded +from political power. They possess it; and +as long as they are allowed to accumulate +large fortunes, they must possess it. The +distinction which is sometimes made between +civil privileges and political power is a distinction +without a difference. Privileges are +power. Civil and political are synonymous +words, the one derived from the Latin, the +other from the Greek. Nor is this mere +verbal quibbling. If we look for a moment +at the facts of the case, we shall see that +the things are inseparable, or rather identical.</p> + +<p>That a Jew should be a judge in a Christian +country would be most shocking. But he +may be a juryman. He may try issues of +fact; and no harm is done. But if he should +be suffered to try issues of law, there is an +end of the constitution. He may sit in a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> +box plainly dressed, and return verdicts. But +that he should sit on the bench in a black +gown and white wig, and grant new trials, +would be an abomination not to be thought +of among baptized people. The distinction +is certainly most philosophical.</p> + +<p>What power in civilised society is so great +as that of the creditor over the debtor? If +we take this away from the Jew, we take +away from him the security of his property. +If we leave it to him, we leave to him a +power more despotic by far than that of the +king and all his cabinet.</p> + +<p>It would be impious to let a Jew sit in +Parliament. But a Jew may make money; +and money may make Members of Parliament. +Gatton and Old Sarum may be the property +of a Hebrew. An elector of Penryn will take +ten pounds from Shylock rather than nine +pounds nineteen shillings and elevenpence +three farthings from Antonio.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> To this no +objection is made. That a Jew should possess +the substance of legislative power, that he +should command eight votes on every division +as if he were the great Duke of Newcastle<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> +himself, is exactly as it should be. But that +he should pass the bar and sit down on those +mysterious cushions of green leather, that he +should cry “hear” and “order,” and talk +about being on his legs, and being, for one,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> +free to say this and to say that, would be a +profanation sufficient to bring ruin on the +country.</p> + +<p>That a Jew should be privy councillor to a +Christian king would be an eternal disgrace +to the nation. But the Jew may govern the +money-market, and the money-market may +govern the world. The minister may be in +doubt as to his scheme of finance till he has +been closeted with a Jew. A congress of +sovereigns may be forced to summon the Jew +to their assistance. The scrawl of the Jew +on the back of a piece of paper may be worth +more than the royal word of three kings, or +the national faith of three new American +republics. But that he should put Right +Honourable before his name would be the +most frightful of national calamities.</p> + +<p>It was in this way that some of our politicians +reasoned about the Irish Catholics. +The Catholics ought to have no political +power. The sun of England is set for ever +if the Catholics exercise political power. Give +the Catholics everything else; but keep political +power from them. These wise men +did not see that, when everything else had +been given, political power had been given. +They continued to repeat their cuckoo song, +when it was no longer a question whether +Catholics should have political power or not,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> +when a Catholic Association bearded the +Parliament, when a Catholic agitator exercised +infinitely more authority than the Lord +Lieutenant.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> + +<p>If it is our duty as Christians to exclude +the Jews from political power, it must be our +duty to treat them as our ancestors treated +them, to murder them, and banish them, and +rob them. For in that way, and in that way +alone, can we really deprive them of political +power. If we do not adopt this course, we +may take away the shadow, but we must +leave them the substance. We may do +enough to pain and irritate them; but we +shall not do enough to secure ourselves from +danger, if danger really exists. Where wealth +is, there power must inevitably be.</p> + +<p>The English Jews, we are told, are not +Englishmen. They are a separate people, +living locally in this island, but living morally +and politically in communion with their brethren +who are scattered over all the world. +An English Jew looks on a Dutch or a +Portuguese Jew as his countryman, and on +an English Christian as a stranger. This +want of patriotic feeling, it is said, renders +a Jew unfit to exercise political functions.</p> + +<p>The argument has in it something plausible; +but a close examination shows it to be +quite unsound. Even if the alleged facts are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> +admitted, still the Jews are not the only +people who have preferred their sect to their +country. The feeling of patriotism, when +society is in a healthful state, springs up by +a natural and inevitable association, in the +minds of citizens who know that they owe +all their comforts and pleasures to the bond +which unites them in one community. But, +under a partial and oppressive government, +these associations cannot acquire that strength +which they have in a better state of things. +Men are compelled to seek from their party +that protection which they ought to receive +from their country, and they, by a natural +consequence, transfer to their party that +affection which they would otherwise have +felt for their country. The Huguenots of +France called in the help of England against +their Catholic kings. The Catholics of +France called in the help of Spain against a +Huguenot king. Would it be fair to infer, +that at present the French Protestants would +wish to see their religion made dominant by +the help of a Prussian or English army? +Surely not. And why is it that they are not +willing, as they formerly were willing, to +sacrifice the interests of their country to +the interests of their religious persuasion? +The reason is obvious: they were persecuted +then, and are not persecuted now. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> +English Puritans, under Charles the First, +prevailed on the Scotch to invade England. +Do the Protestant Dissenters of our time +wish to see the Church put down by an +invasion of foreign Calvinists? If not, to +what cause are we to attribute the change? +Surely to this, that the Protestant Dissenters +are far better treated now than in the seventeenth +century. Some of the most illustrious +public men that England ever produced were +inclined to take refuge from the tyranny of +Laud in North America.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Was this because +Presbyterians and Independents are incapable +of loving their country? But it is idle to +multiply instances. Nothing is so offensive +to a man who knows anything of history or +of human nature as to hear those who exercise +the powers of government accuse any +sect of foreign attachments. If there be +any proposition universally true in politics it +is this, that foreign attachments are the fruit +of domestic misrule. It has always been the +trick of bigots to make their subjects miserable +at home, and then to complain that they look +for relief abroad; to divide society, and to +wonder that it is not united; to govern as if +a section of the state were the whole, and to +censure the other sections of the state for their +want of patriotic spirit. If the Jews have not +felt towards England like children, it is because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> +she has treated them like a stepmother. +There is no feeling which more certainly +develops itself in the minds of men living +under tolerably good government than the +feeling of patriotism. Since the beginning +of the world, there never was any nation, or +any large portion of any nation, not cruelly +oppressed, which was wholly destitute of that +feeling. To make it, therefore, ground of +accusation against a class of men, that they +are not patriotic, is the most vulgar legerdemain +of sophistry. It is the logic which the +wolf employs against the lamb. It is to +accuse the mouth of the stream of poisoning +the source.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p>If the English Jews really felt a deadly +hatred to England, if the weekly prayer of +their synagogues were that all the curses +denounced by Ezekiel on Tyre and Egypt +might fall on London, if, in their solemn +feasts, they called down blessings on those +who should dash their children to pieces on +the stones, still, we say, their hatred to their +countrymen would not be more intense than +that which sects of Christians have often +borne to each other. But in fact the feeling +of the Jews is not such. It is precisely +what, in the situation in which they are +placed, we should expect it to be. They are +treated far better than the French Protestants<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> +were treated in the sixteenth and seventeenth +centuries, or than our Puritans were treated +in the time of Laud. They, therefore, have +no rancour against the government or against +their countrymen. It will not be denied +that they are far better affected to the state +than the followers of Coligni or Vane.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> +But they are not so well treated as the +dissenting sects of Christians are now treated +in England; and on this account, and, we +firmly believe, on this account alone, they +have a more exclusive spirit. Till we have +carried the experiment farther, we are not +entitled to conclude that they cannot be +made Englishmen altogether. The statesman +who treats them as aliens, and then abuses +them for not entertaining all the feelings +of natives, is as unreasonable as the tyrant +who punished their fathers for not making +bricks without straw.</p> + +<p>Rulers must not be suffered thus to absolve +themselves of their solemn responsibility. It +does not lie in their mouths to say that a +sect is not patriotic. It is their business to +make it patriotic. History and reason clearly +indicate the means. The English Jews are, +as far as we can see, precisely what our +government has made them. They are precisely +what any sect, what any class of men, +treated as they have been treated, would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> +have been. If all the red-haired people in +Europe had, during centuries, been outraged +and oppressed, banished from this place, imprisoned +in that, deprived of their money, +deprived of their teeth, convicted of the most +improbable crimes on the feeblest evidence, +dragged at horses’ tails, hanged, tortured, +burned alive; if, when manners became +milder, they had still been subject to debasing +restrictions and exposed to vulgar insults, +locked up in particular streets in some +countries, pelted and ducked by the rabble +in others, excluded everywhere from magistracies +and honours, what would be the +patriotism of gentlemen with red hair? And +if, under such circumstances, a proposition +were made for admitting red-haired men to +office, how striking a speech might an +eloquent admirer of our old institutions +deliver against so revolutionary a measure! +“These men,” he might say, “scarcely +consider themselves as Englishmen. They +think a red-haired Frenchman or a red-haired +German more closely connected with them +than a man with brown hair born in their +own parish. If a foreign sovereign patronises +red hair, they love him better than their own +native king. They are not Englishmen: +they cannot be Englishmen: nature has forbidden +it: experience proves it to be impossible.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> +Right to political power they +have none; for no man has a right to +political power. Let them enjoy personal +security; let their property be under the +protection of the law. But if they ask for +leave to exercise power over a community +of which they are only half members, a +community the constitution of which is +essentially dark-haired, let us answer them in +the words of our wise ancestors, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Nolumus +leges Angliæ mutari</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> + +<p>But it is said, the Scriptures declare that +the Jews are to be restored to their own +country; and the whole nation looks forward +to that restoration. They are, therefore, not +so deeply interested as others in the prosperity +of England. It is not their home, but merely +the place of their sojourn, the house of their +bondage. This argument, which first appeared +in the <cite>Times</cite> newspaper,<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and which +has attracted a degree of attention proportioned +not so much to its own intrinsic force as to +the general talent with which that journal is +conducted, belongs to a class of sophisms by +which the most hateful persecutions may +easily be justified. To charge men with +practical consequences which they themselves +deny is disingenuous in controversy; it is +atrocious in government. The doctrine of +predestination, in the opinion of many people,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> +tends to make those who hold it utterly +immoral. And certainly it would seem that +a man who believes his eternal destiny to be +already irrevocably fixed is likely to indulge +his passions without restraint and to neglect +his religious duties. If he is an heir of wrath, +his exertions must be unavailing. If he is +preordained to life, they must be superfluous. +But would it be wise to punish every man +who holds the higher doctrines of Calvinism, +as if he had actually committed all those +crimes which we know some Antinomians to +have committed? Assuredly not. The fact +notoriously is that there are many Calvinists +as moral in their conduct as any Arminian, +and many Arminians as loose as any Calvinist.</p> + +<p>It is altogether impossible to reason from +the opinions which a man professes to his +feelings and his actions; and in fact no person +is ever such a fool as to reason thus, except +when he wants a pretext for persecuting +his neighbours. A Christian is commanded, +under the strongest sanctions, to be just in all +his dealings. Yet to how many of the twenty-four +millions of professing Christians in these +islands would any man in his senses lend a +thousand pounds without security? A man +who should act, for one day, on the supposition +that all the people about him were influenced +by the religion which they professed, would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> +find himself ruined before night; and no man +ever does act on that supposition in any of the +ordinary concerns of life, in borrowing, in +lending, in buying, or in selling. But when +any of our fellow-creatures are to be oppressed, +the case is different. Then we represent +those motives which we know to be so feeble +for good as omnipotent for evil. Then we +lay to the charge of our victims all the vices +and follies to which their doctrines, however +remotely, seem to tend. We forget that the +same weakness, the same laxity, the same disposition +to prefer the present to the future, +which make men worse than a good religion, +make them better than a bad one.</p> + +<p>It was in this way that our ancestors +reasoned, and that some people in our time +still reason, about the Catholics. A Papist +believes himself bound to obey the pope. +The pope has issued a bull deposing Queen +Elizabeth. Therefore every Papist will treat +her grace as an usurper. Therefore every +Papist is a traitor. Therefore every Papist +ought to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. To +this logic we owe some of the most hateful +laws that ever disgraced our history. Surely +the answer lies on the surface. The Church +of Rome may have commanded these men to +treat the queen as an usurper. But she has +commanded them to do many other things<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> +which they have never done. She enjoins +her priests to observe strict purity. You are +always taunting them with their licentiousness. +She commands all her followers to fast often, +to be charitable to the poor, to take no interest +for money, to fight no duels, to see no plays. +Do they obey these injunctions? If it be the +fact that very few of them strictly observe her +precepts, when her precepts are opposed to their +passions and interests, may not loyalty, may +not humanity, may not the love of ease, may +not the fear of death, be sufficient to prevent +them from executing those wicked orders which +the Church of Rome has issued against the +sovereign of England? When we know that +many of these people do not care enough for +their religion to go without beef on a Friday +for it, why should we think that they will run +the risk of being racked and hanged for it?</p> + +<p>People are now reasoning about the Jews +as our fathers reasoned about the Papists. +The law which is inscribed on the walls of +the synagogues prohibits covetousness.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> But +if we were to say that a Jew mortgagee would +not foreclose because God had commanded +him not to covet his neighbour’s house, everybody +would think us out of our wits. Yet +it passes for an argument to say that a Jew +will take no interest in the prosperity of the +country in which he lives, that he will not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> +care how bad its laws and police may be, how +heavily it may be taxed, how often it may be +conquered and given up to spoil, because God +has promised that, by some unknown means +and at some undetermined time, perhaps ten +thousand years hence, the Jews shall migrate +to Palestine. Is not this the most profound +ignorance of human nature? Do we not +know that what is remote and indefinite affects +men far less than what is near and certain? +The argument, too, applies to Christians as +strongly as to Jews. The Christian believes +as well as the Jew, that at some future period +the present order of things will come to an +end. Nay, many Christians believe that the +Messiah will shortly establish a kingdom on +the earth, and reign visibly over all its inhabitants. +Whether this doctrine be orthodox +or not we shall not here inquire. The +number of people who hold it is very much +greater than the number of Jews residing in +England. Many of those who hold it are +distinguished by rank, wealth, and ability. It +is preached from pulpits both of the Scottish +and of the English Church. Noblemen and +Members of Parliament have written in defence +of it. Now wherein does this doctrine differ, +as far as its political tendency is concerned, +from the doctrine of the Jews? If a Jew is +unfit to legislate for us because he believes that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> +he or his remote descendants will be removed +to Palestine, can we safely open the House of +Commons to a fifth-monarchy man, who +expects that before this generation shall pass +away, all the kingdoms of the earth will be +swallowed up in one divine empire?</p> + +<p>Does a Jew engage less eagerly than a +Christian in any competition which the law +leaves open to him? Is he less active and +regular in his business than his neighbours? +Does he furnish his house meanly, because he +is a pilgrim and sojourner in the land? Does +the expectation of being restored to the country +of his fathers make him insensible to the +fluctuations of the stock-exchange? Does he, +in arranging his private affairs, ever take into +the account the chance of his migrating to +Palestine? If not, why are we to suppose +that feelings which never influence his dealings +as a merchant, or his dispositions as a +testator, will acquire a boundless influence +over him as soon as he becomes a magistrate +or a legislator?</p> + +<p>There is another argument which we +would not willingly treat with levity, and +which yet we scarcely know how to treat +seriously. Scripture, it is said, is full of terrible +denunciations against the Jews. It is +foretold that they are to be wanderers. Is +it then right to give them a home? It is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> +foretold that they are to be oppressed. Can +we with propriety suffer them to be rulers? +To admit them to the rights of citizens is +manifestly to insult the Divine oracles.</p> + +<p>We allow that to falsify a prophecy inspired +by Divine Wisdom would be a most +atrocious crime. It is, therefore, a happy +circumstance for our frail species, that it is +a crime which no man can possibly commit. +If we admit the Jews to seats in Parliament, +we shall, by so doing, prove that the prophecies +in question, whatever they may mean, +do not mean that the Jews shall be excluded +from Parliament.</p> + +<p>In fact it is already clear that the prophecies +do not bear the meaning put upon +them by the respectable persons whom we +are now answering. In France and in the +United States the Jews are already admitted to +all the rights of citizens. A prophecy, therefore, +which should mean that the Jews would +never, during the course of their wanderings, +be admitted to all the rights of citizens +in the places of their sojourn, would be a false +prophecy. This, therefore, is not the meaning +of the prophecies of Scripture.</p> + +<p>But we protest altogether against the +practice of confounding prophecy with precept, +of setting up predictions which are +often obscure against a morality which is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> +always clear. If actions are to be considered +as just and good merely because they have +been predicted, what action was ever more +laudable than that crime which our bigots +are now, at the end of eighteen centuries, +urging us to avenge on the Jews, that crime +which made the earth shake and blotted out +the sun from heaven? The same reasoning +which is now employed to vindicate the +disabilities imposed on our Hebrew countrymen +will equally vindicate the kiss of Judas +and the judgment of Pilate. “The son of +man goeth, as it is written of him; but woe +to that man by whom the son of man is +betrayed.”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> And woe to those who, in any +age or in any country, disobey his benevolent +commands under pretence of accomplishing +his predictions. If this argument justifies +the laws now existing against the Jews, +it justifies equally all the cruelties which +have ever been committed against them, the +sweeping edicts of banishment and confiscation, +the dungeon, the rack, and the slow +fire. How can we excuse ourselves for +leaving property to people who are to “serve +their enemies in hunger, and in thirst, and +in nakedness, and in want of all things”; for +giving protection to the persons of those who +are to “fear day and night, and to have none +assurance of their life”; for not seizing on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> +children of a race whose “sons and daughters +are to be given unto another people”?<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> + +<p>We have not so learned the doctrines of +him who commanded us to love our neighbour +as ourselves, and who, when he was +called upon to explain what he meant by a +neighbour, selected as an example a heretic +and an alien.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> Last year, we remember, it +was represented by a pious writer in the +<cite>John Bull</cite> newspaper,<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> and by some other +equally fervid Christians, as a monstrous +indecency, that the measure for the relief +of the Jews should be brought forward in +Passion week. One of these humourists +ironically recommended that it should be +read a second time on Good Friday. We +should have had no objection; nor do we +believe that the day could be commemorated +in a more worthy manner. We know of no +day fitter for terminating long hostilities, and +repairing cruel wrongs, than the day on +which the religion of mercy was founded. +We know of no day fitter for blotting out +from the statute-book the last traces of intolerance +than the day on which the spirit of +intolerance produced the foulest of all judicial +murders, the day on which the list of the +victims of intolerance, that noble list wherein +Socrates and More are enrolled, was glorified +by a yet greater and holier name.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="A_SPEECH">A SPEECH</h2> +</div> + +<p class="center no-indent wsp">DELIVERED IN A COMMITTEE OF THE<br> +WHOLE HOUSE OF COMMONS</p> + +<p class="center no-indent fs90"><em>On the 17th of April 1833.</em></p> +<br> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>On the seventeenth of April, 1833, the House of +Commons resolved itself into a Committee to +consider of the civil disabilities of the Jews. Mr. +Warburton took the chair. Mr. Robert Grant +moved the following resolution:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>“That it is the opinion of this Committee +that it is expedient to remove all civil disabilities +at present existing with respect to +His Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewish +religion, with the like exceptions as are +provided with respect to His Majesty’s +subjects professing the Roman Catholic +religion.”</p> +</div> + +<p>The resolution passed without a division, after a +warm debate, in the course of which the following +Speech was made:—</p> +</div> + +<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Mr. Warburton</span>,—I recollect, and my +honourable friend the Member for the +University of Oxford<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> will recollect, that +when this subject was discussed three years +ago, it was remarked, by one whom we both<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> +loved and whom we both regret, that the +strength of the case of the Jews was a serious +inconvenience to their advocate, for that it +was hardly possible to make a speech for +them without wearying the audience by +repeating truths which were universally +admitted. If Sir James Mackintosh felt this +difficulty when the question was first brought +forward in this House, I may well despair of +being able now to offer any arguments which +have a pretence to novelty.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p> + +<p>My honourable friend, the Member for the +University of Oxford, began his speech by +declaring that he had no intention of calling +in question the principles of religious liberty. +He utterly disclaims persecution, that is to +say, persecution as defined by himself. It +would, in his opinion, be persecution to hang +a Jew, or to flay him, or to draw his teeth, +or to imprison him, or to fine him; for +every man who conducts himself peaceably +has a right to his life and his limbs, to his +personal liberty and his property. But it +is not persecution, says my honourable friend, +to exclude any individual or any class from +office; for nobody has a right to office: in +every country official appointments must be +subject to such regulations as the supreme +authority may choose to make; nor can any +such regulations be reasonably complained of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> +by any member of the society as unjust. He +who obtains an office obtains it, not as matter +of right, but as matter of favour. He who +does not obtain an office is not wronged; +he is only in that situation in which the +vast majority of every community must +necessarily be. There are in the United +Kingdom five and twenty million Christians +without places; and, if they do not complain, +why should five and twenty thousand +Jews complain of being in the same case? +In this way my honourable friend has convinced +himself that, as it would be most +absurd in him and me to say that we are +wronged because we are not Secretaries of +State, so it is most absurd in the Jews to +say that they are wronged because they +are, as a people, excluded from public +employment.</p> + +<p>Now, surely my honourable friend cannot +have considered to what conclusions his +reasoning leads. Those conclusions are so +monstrous that he would, I am certain, +shrink from them. Does he really mean +that it would not be wrong in the legislature +to enact that no man should be a judge +unless he weighed twelve stone, or that no +man should sit in Parliament unless he were +six feet high? We are about to bring in +a bill for the government of India. Suppose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> +that we were to insert in that bill a clause +providing that no graduate of the University +of Oxford should be Governor-General or +Governor of any Presidency, would not +my honourable friend cry out against such +a clause as most unjust to the learned body +which he represents? And would he think +himself sufficiently answered by being told, +in his own words, that the appointment to +office is a mere matter of favour, and that +to exclude an individual or a class from +office is no injury? Surely, on consideration, +he must admit that official appointments +ought not to be subject to regulations purely +arbitrary, to regulations for which no reason +can be given but mere caprice, and that those +who would exclude any class from public +employment are bound to show some special +reason for the exclusion.</p> + +<p>My honourable friend has appealed to us +as Christians. Let me then ask him how +he understands that great commandment +which comprises the law and the prophets. +Can we be said to do unto others as we +would that they should do unto us if we +wantonly inflict on them even the smallest +pain? As Christians, surely we are bound +to consider, first, whether, by excluding the +Jews from all public trust, we give them +pain; and, secondly, whether it be necessary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> +to give them that pain in order to avert some +greater evil. That by excluding them from +public trust we inflict pain on them my +honourable friend will not dispute. As a +Christian, therefore, he is bound to relieve +them from that pain, unless he can show, +what I am sure he has not yet shown, that +it is necessary to the general good that they +should continue to suffer.</p> + +<p>But where, he says, are you to stop, if +once you admit into the House of Commons +people who deny the authority of the Gospels? +Will you let in a Mussulman? Will you +let in a Parsee? Will you let in a Hindoo, +who worships a lump of stone with seven +heads? I will answer my honourable friend’s +question by another. Where does he mean +to stop? Is he ready to roast unbelievers +at slow fires? If not, let him tell us why: +and I will engage to prove that his reason is +just as decisive against the intolerance which +he thinks a duty, as against the intolerance +which he thinks a crime. Once admit that +we are bound to inflict pain on a man because +he is not of our religion; and where +are you to stop? Why stop at the point +fixed by my honourable friend rather than +at the point fixed by the honourable Member +for Oldham,<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> who would make the Jews +incapable of holding land? And why stop<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> +at the point fixed by the honourable Member +for Oldham rather than at the point which +would have been fixed by a Spanish Inquisitor +of the sixteenth century? When once you +enter on a course of persecution, I defy you +to find any reason for making a halt till +you have reached the extreme point. When +my honourable friend tells us that he will +allow the Jews to possess property to any +amount, but that he will not allow them to +possess the smallest political power, he holds +contradictory language. Property is power. +The honourable Member for Oldham reasons +better than my honourable friend. The +honourable member for Oldham sees very +clearly that it is impossible to deprive a +man of political power if you suffer him +to be the proprietor of half a county, and +therefore very consistently proposes to confiscate +the landed estates of the Jews. But +even the honourable Member for Oldham +does not go far enough. He has not proposed +to confiscate the personal property of +the Jews. Yet it is perfectly certain that +any Jew who has a million may easily make +himself very important in the state. By +such steps we pass from official power to +landed property, and from landed property +to personal property, and from property to +liberty, and from liberty to life. In truth,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> +those persecutors who use the rack and the +stake have much to say for themselves. +They are convinced that their end is good; +and it must be admitted that they employ +means which are not unlikely to attain the +end. Religious dissent has repeatedly been +put down by sanguinary persecution. In +that way the Albigenses were put down.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> +In that way Protestantism was suppressed +in Spain and Italy, so that it has never since +reared its head. But I defy anybody to +produce an instance in which disabilities such +as we are now considering have produced any +other effect than that of making the sufferers +angry and obstinate. My honourable friend +should either persecute to some purpose, or +not persecute at all. He dislikes the word +persecution, I know. He will not admit +that the Jews are persecuted. And yet I +am confident that he would rather be sent +to the King’s Bench Prison for three months, +or be fined a hundred pounds, than be subject +to the disabilities under which the Jews +lie. How can he then say that to impose +such disabilities is not persecution, and that +to fine and imprison is persecution? All his +reasoning consists in drawing arbitrary lines. +What he does not wish to inflict he calls +persecution. What he does wish to inflict +he will not call persecution. What he takes<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> +from the Jews he calls political power. +What he is too good-natured to take from +the Jews he will not call political power. +The Jew must not sit in Parliament; but +he may be the proprietor of all the ten-pound +houses in a borough.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> He may have +more fifty-pound tenants than any peer in +the kingdom. He may give the voters treats +to please their palates, and hire bands of +gipsies to break their heads, as if he were +a Christian and a Marquess. All the rest +of the system is of a piece. The Jew may +be a juryman, but not a judge. He may +decide issues of fact, but not issues of law. +He may give a hundred thousand pounds +damages; but he may not in the most trivial +case grant a new trial. He may rule the +money-market: he may influence the exchanges: +he may be summoned to congresses +of Emperors and Kings. Great potentates, +instead of negotiating a loan with him by +tying him in a chair and pulling out his +grinders, may treat with him as with a great +potentate, and may postpone the declaring +of war or the signing of a treaty till they +have conferred with him. All this is as it +should be: but he must not be a Privy +Councillor. He must not be called Right +Honourable, for that is political power. And +who is it that we are trying to cheat in this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> +way? Even Omniscience. Yes, Sir; we +have been gravely told that the Jews are +under the divine displeasure, and that if +we give them political power, God will visit +us in judgment. Do we then think that +God cannot distinguish between substance +and form? Does not He know that, while +we withhold from the Jews the semblance +and name of political power, we suffer them +to possess the substance? The plain truth +is that my honourable friend is drawn in +one direction by his opinions, and in a +directly opposite direction by his excellent +heart. He halts between two opinions. He +tries to make a compromise between principles +which admit of no compromise. He goes a +certain way in intolerance. Then he stops, +without being able to give a reason for stopping. +But I know the reason. It is his +humanity. Those who formerly dragged +the Jew at a horse’s tail, and singed his +beard with blazing furze-bushes, were much +worse men than my honourable friend; but +they were more consistent than he.</p> + +<p>It has been said that it would be monstrous +to see a Jew judge try a man for blasphemy.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> +In my opinion it is monstrous to see any +judge try a man for blasphemy under the +present law. But, if the law on that subject +were in a sound state, I do not see why a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> +conscientious Jew might not try a blasphemer. +Every man, I think, ought to be at liberty to +discuss the evidences of religion; but no man +ought to be at liberty to force on the unwilling +ears and eyes of others sounds and +sights which must cause annoyance and +irritation. The distinction is clear. I think +it wrong to punish a man for selling Paine’s +“Age of Reason” in a back-shop to those +who choose to buy, or for delivering a +Deistical lecture in a private room to those +who choose to listen. But if a man exhibits +at a window in the Strand a hideous caricature +of that which is an object of awe and +adoration to nine hundred and ninety-nine +out of every thousand of the people who pass +up and down that great thoroughfare; if a +man in a place of public resort applies opprobrious +epithets to names held in reverence +by all Christians; such a man ought, in my +opinion, to be severely punished, not for +differing from us in opinion, but for committing +a nuisance which gives us pain and +disgust. He is no more entitled to outrage +our feelings by obtruding his impiety on us, +and to say that he is exercising his right +of discussion, than to establish a yard for +butchering horses close to our houses, and to +say that he is exercising his right of property, +or to run naked up and down the public<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> +streets, and to say that he is exercising his right +of locomotion. He has a right of discussion, +no doubt, as he has a right of property and a +right of locomotion. But he must use all his +rights so as not to infringe the rights of others.</p> + +<p>These, Sir, are the principles on which I +would frame the law of blasphemy; and if +the law were so framed, I am at a loss to +understand why a Jew might not enforce it +as well as a Christian. I am not a Roman +Catholic; but if I were a judge at Malta, I +should have no scruple about punishing a +bigoted Protestant who should burn the Pope +in effigy before the eyes of thousands of +Roman Catholics. I am not a Mussulman; +but if I were a judge in India, I should have +no scruple about punishing a Christian who +should pollute a mosque. Why, then, should +I doubt that a Jew, raised by his ability, +learning, and integrity to the judicial bench, +would deal properly with any person who, +in a Christian country, should insult the +Christian religion?</p> + +<p>But, says my honourable friend, it has +been prophesied that the Jews are to be +wanderers on the face of the earth, and that +they are not to mix on terms of equality +with the people of the countries in which they +sojourn. Now, Sir, I am confident that I +can demonstrate that this is not the sense of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> +any prophecy which is part of Holy Writ. +For it is an undoubted fact that, in the +United States of America, Jewish citizens do +possess all the privileges possessed by Christian +citizens. Therefore, if the prophecies mean +that the Jews never shall, during their wanderings, +be admitted by other nations to +equal participation of political rights, the +prophecies are false. But the prophecies are +certainly not false. Therefore their meaning +cannot be that which is attributed to them +by my honourable friend.</p> + +<p>Another objection which has been made to +the motion is that the Jews look forward to +the coming of a great deliverer, to their return +to Palestine, to the rebuilding of their +Temple, to the revival of their ancient +worship, and that therefore they will always +consider England, not their country, but +merely as their place of exile. But, surely, +Sir, it would be the grossest ignorance of +human nature to imagine that the anticipation +of an event which is to happen at some time +altogether indefinite, of an event which has +been vainly expected during many centuries, +of an event which even those who confidently +expect that it will happen do not confidently +expect that they or their children or their +grandchildren will see, can ever occupy the +minds of men to such a degree as to make<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> +them regardless of what is near and present +and certain. Indeed Christians, as well as +Jews, believe that the existing order of +things will come to an end. Many Christians +believe that Jesus will visibly reign on +earth during a thousand years. Expositors of +prophecy have gone so far as to fix the year +when the Millennial period is to commence. +The prevailing opinion is, I think, in favour +of the year 1866; but, according to some +commentators, the time is close at hand. +Are we to exclude all millenarians from +Parliament and office, on the ground that +they are impatiently looking forward to the +miraculous monarchy which is to supersede +the present dynasty and the present constitution +of England, and that therefore they +cannot be heartily loyal to King William?</p> + +<p>In one important point, Sir, my honourable +friend, the Member for the University of +Oxford, must acknowledge that the Jewish +religion is of all erroneous religions the least +mischievous. There is not the slightest +chance that the Jewish religion will spread. +The Jew does not wish to make proselytes. +He may be said to reject them.<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> He thinks +it almost culpable in one who does not belong +to his race to presume to belong to his religion. +It is therefore not strange that a conversion +from Christianity to Judaism should be a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> +rarer occurrence than a total eclipse of the +sun. There was one distinguished convert +in the last century, Lord George Gordon; +and the history of his conversion deserves +to be remembered.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> For if ever there was a +proselyte of whom a proselytising sect would +have been proud, it was Lord George; not +only because he was a man of high birth +and rank; not only because he had been a +member of the legislature; but also because +he had been distinguished by the intolerance, +nay, the ferocity, of his zeal for his own +form of Christianity. But was he allured +into the synagogue? Was he even welcomed +to it? No, Sir; he was coldly and reluctantly +permitted to share the reproach and suffering +of the chosen people; but he was sternly +shut out from their privileges. He underwent +the painful rite which their law enjoins. +But when, on his death-bed, he begged hard +to be buried among them according to their +ceremonial, he was told that his request could +not be granted. I understand that cry of +“Hear.” It reminds me that one of the +arguments against this motion is that the +Jews are an unsocial people, that they draw +close to each other, and stand aloof from +strangers. Really, Sir, it is amusing to +compare the manner in which the question +of Catholic emancipation was argued formerly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> +by some gentlemen with the manner in which +the question of Jew emancipation is argued +by the same gentlemen now. When the +question was about Catholic emancipation, +the cry was, “See how restless, how versatile, +how encroaching, how insinuating, is the +spirit of the Church of Rome. See how her +priests compass earth and sea to make one +proselyte, how indefatigably they toil, how +attentively they study the weak and strong +parts of every character, how skilfully they +employ literature, arts, sciences, as engines +for the propagation of their faith. You find +them in every region and under every disguise, +collating manuscripts in the Bodleian, +fixing telescopes in the observatory of Pekin, +teaching the use of the plough and the +spinning wheel to the savages of Paraguay. +Will you give power to the members of a +Church so busy, so aggressive, so insatiable?” +Well, now the question is about people who +never try to seduce any stranger to join them, +and who do not wish anybody to be of their +faith who is not also of their blood. And +now you exclaim, “Will you give power to +the members of a sect which remains sullenly +apart from other sects, which does not invite, +nay, which hardly even admits neophytes?” +The truth is, that bigotry will never want +a pretence. Whatever the sect be which it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> +is proposed to tolerate, the peculiarities of that +sect will, for the time, be pronounced by +intolerant men to be the most odious and +dangerous that can be conceived. As to the +Jews, that they are unsocial as respects religion +is true; and so much the better: for, +surely, as Christians, we cannot wish that +they should bestir themselves to pervert us +from our own faith. But that the Jews +would be unsocial members of the civil +community, if the civil community did its +duty by them, has never been proved. My +right honourable friend who made the +motion which we are discussing has produced +a great body of evidence to show that +they have been grossly misrepresented;<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> +and that evidence has not been refuted by +my honourable friend the Member for the +University of Oxford. But what if it were +true that the Jews are unsocial? What if +it were true that they do not regard England +as their country? Would not the treatment +which they have undergone explain and +excuse their antipathy to the society in +which they live? Has not similar antipathy +often been felt by persecuted Christians to +the society which persecuted them? While +the bloody code of Elizabeth was enforced +against the English Roman Catholics, what +was the patriotism of Roman Catholics?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> +Oliver Cromwell said that in his time +they were Espaniolised. At a later period +it might have been said that they were +Gallicised. It was the same with the +Calvinists. What more deadly enemies had +France in the days of Louis the Fourteenth +than the persecuted Huguenots? But would +any rational man infer from these facts that +either the Roman Catholic as such, or the +Calvinist as such, is incapable of loving the +land of his birth? If England were now +invaded by Roman Catholics, how many +English Roman Catholics would go over to +the invader? If France were now attacked +by a Protestant enemy, how many French +Protestants would lend him help? Why not +try what effect would be produced on the +Jews by that tolerant policy which has made +the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman +and the French Calvinist a good +Frenchman?<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> + +<p>Another charge has been brought against +the Jews, not by my honourable friend the +Member for the University of Oxford—he +has too much learning and too much good +feeling to make such a charge—but by the +honourable Member for Oldham, who has, +I am sorry to see, quitted his place. The +honourable Member for Oldham tells us that +the Jews are naturally a mean race, a sordid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> +race, a money-getting race; that they are +averse to all honourable callings; that they +neither sow nor reap; that they have neither +flocks nor herds; that usury is the only +pursuit for which they are fit; that they are +destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments. +Such, Sir, has in every age been +the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to +plead in justification of persecution the vices +which persecution has engendered. England +has been to the Jews less than half a +country; and we revile them because they +do not feel for England more than a half +patriotism. We treat them as slaves, and +wonder that they do not regard us as +brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, +and then reproach them for not +embracing honourable professions. We long +forbade them to possess land; and we complain +that they chiefly occupy themselves in +trade. We shut them out from all the paths +of ambition; and then we despise them for +taking refuge in avarice. During many ages +we have, in all our dealings with them, +abused our immense superiority of force; and +then we are disgusted because they have recourse +to that cunning which is the natural +and universal defence of the weak against +the violence of the strong. But were they +always a mere money-changing, money-getting,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> +money-hoarding race? Nobody +knows better than my honourable friend the +Member for the University of Oxford that +there is nothing in their national character +which unfits them for the highest duties of +citizens. He knows that, in the infancy of +civilisation, when our island was as savage as +New Guinea, when letters and arts were +still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a +thatched hut stood on what was afterwards +the site of Rome, this contemned people had +their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their +splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant +ships, their schools of sacred learning, their +great statesmen and soldiers, their natural +philosophers, their historians and their poets. +What nation ever contended more manfully +against overwhelming odds for its independence +and religion? What nation ever, in +its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of +what may be accomplished by a brave +despair? And if, in the course of many +centuries, the oppressed descendants of warriors +and sages have degenerated from the +qualities of their fathers, if, while excluded +from the blessings of law, and bowed down +under the yoke of slavery, they have contracted +some of the vices of outlaws and +of slaves, shall we consider this as matter +of reproach to them? Shall we not rather<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> +consider it as matter of shame and remorse +to ourselves? Let us do justice to them. +Let us open to them the door of the House +of Commons. Let us open to them every +career in which ability and energy can be +displayed. Till we have done this, let us not +presume to say that there is no genius among +the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among +the descendants of the Maccabees.</p> + +<p>Sir, in supporting the motion of my honourable +friend, I am, I firmly believe, supporting +the honour and the interests of the Christian +religion. I should think that I insulted that +religion if I said that it cannot stand unaided +by intolerant laws. Without such laws it was +established, and without such laws it may be +maintained. It triumphed over the superstitions +of the most refined and of the most savage +nations, over the graceful mythology of Greece +and the bloody idolatry of the Northern forests. +It prevailed over the power and policy of the +Roman empire. It tamed the barbarians by +whom that empire was overthrown. But all +these victories were gained not by the help of +intolerance, but in spite of the opposition of +intolerance. The whole history of Christianity +proves that she has little indeed to fear from +persecution as a foe, but much to fear from +persecution as an ally. May she long continue +to bless our country with her benignant<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> +influence, strong in her sublime philosophy, +strong in her spotless morality, strong in those +internal and external evidences to which the +most powerful and comprehensive of human +intellects have yielded assent, the last solace of +those who have outlived every earthly hope, +the last restraint of those who are raised +above every earthly fear! But let not us, +mistaking her character and her interests, +fight the battle of truth with the weapons of +error, and endeavour to support by oppression +that religion which first taught the human +race the great lesson of universal charity.</p> +<br> + +<div class="figcenter" id="signature" style="width: 85%"> +<img src="images/i_062fp.jpg" alt="" data-role="presentation"> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="NOTES">NOTES</h2> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> The full title of the publication which forms the peg +for Macaulay’s essay is <em>Statement of the Civil Disabilities +and Privations affecting natural born Subjects of His Majesty +professing the Jewish Religion, commonly called Jews</em>. It was +printed in 1829 by G. Taylor, Printer, 7 Little James +Street. In the article in the <cite>Westminster Review</cite>, April +1829, occasioned by this same pamphlet, the address of +the printer, George Taylor, is given as <cite>Lamb’s Conduit +Passage, Red Lion Square</cite>. The <em>Statement</em> must have +appeared in two forms. Macaulay describes it as +octavo, but the pages of the copy which Mr. Israel +Solomons possesses measure 12½ by 7¾ inches. The +margins in this copy have been cut for binding. It +was meant to <em>fold</em> in four, as is shown by the manner +in which the title is repeated on the fourth side. The +title as there printed is <em>exactly that cited by Macaulay</em>. +Probably the document was originally a Petition to +the House of Commons.</p> + +<p>The <em>Statement</em> is anonymous, but bears the clear hallmark +of Francis Henry Goldsmid’s style. <em>Cf.</em> D. W. +Marks and A. Löwy, <cite>Memoir of Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid</cite>, +1879, p. 23 [second edition, 1882, p. 27]. The author +opens with the general assertion that no man ought to +be deprived of civil or political right because of his religious +opinions, “unless it can be shewn that, from the +removal of their disabilities, injury is likely to result<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> +to the community at large.” The <em>Statement</em> goes on +to argue that such removal would not injure the +religion or threaten the government of England, for, +on the one hand, Jews do not proselytise, and, on the +other, they are noted for their “proverbial loyalty.” +The experience of the happy effect of emancipation in +France, America, and the Netherlands is next appealed +to. This leads up to a short survey of the history of the +Jews in England before the expulsion in 1290, and after +the return in the time of Cromwell, and an able argument +as to their legal status—including their right to +hold land—follows. The whole concludes with an +appeal for the “Omission in the Oath of Abjuration +and Dissenters’ Declaration, when respectively taken, or +made and subscribed, by persons professing the Jewish +religion, of words obviously inconsistent with such +profession.” It is altogether a moderate and able presentation +of the case for the Jews, and fairly deserved the +prominence given to it by Macaulay.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Sir Robert Grant (1779-1838) was born in Bengal, +and, after a distinguished career at Cambridge, entered +Parliament in 1818. In 1830 his first Bill was rejected; +but a better fate rewarded his effort of 1833. Soon afterwards +he went to India as Governor of Bombay. Grant +was the author of some famous sacred poems, one of the +best and most popular of which was his translation of +Psalm civ., “O Worship the King.”</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> There had been a change of Government. Parliament +was dissolved on July 24, 1830, and in the new parliament +the Duke of Wellington’s ministry fell, to be +succeeded by the Grey administration.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> See comments on this passage in the Introduction.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Professor F. C. Montague remarks that “probably +Perceval, Goulburn, and Vansittart are more particularly +meant.” These were Chancellors between 1810 and 1830.</p> + +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span></p> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Gatton (Surrey) and Old Sarum (Wilts) were +“pocket boroughs without inhabitants,” and, like the +corrupt borough of Penryn (Cornwall), were disfranchised +by the Reform Act. Macaulay was far from implying +that Jews actually did own any corrupt boroughs. +His argument is based on the fact that nothing in the +then state of the law could prevent such ownership.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> “Henry Pelham Francis Pelham Clinton, fourth +Duke of Newcastle, 1785-1851, a high Tory, ejected +some of his tenants at Newark for having voted on the +Whig side in the general election of 1830” (Professor +Montague).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> This refers to Daniel O’Connell—who, it may be remembered, +was a consistent friend of the Jewish claims.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> William Laud (1573-1645), Archbishop of Canterbury +from 1633, was one of the principal advisers of +Charles I. in his repression of the Puritans and the +enforcement of episcopacy upon Scotland. He was +attainted in January 1645, and was executed on Tower +Hill.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> In the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite> these sentences follow: +“It is to put the effect before the cause. It is to vindicate +oppression by pointing to the depravation which +oppression has caused.” Macaulay felt, no doubt, that +the word “depravation” was unjust, and conveyed an +unintended stigma.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> Gaspard de Coligni was a Huguenot victim of the +massacre of St. Bartholomew, in 1572.</p> + +<p>Sir Henry Vane was a leader in the Opposition against +Charles I., and was executed in 1662.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> The answer given by the lay barons at the Parliament +of Merton in 1236 to the proposal of the prelates to +make the English law of legitimacy correspond with +that of other countries. Sir James H. Ramsay, <cite>The +Dawn of the Constitution</cite>, pp. 77, 78, following the text of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> +the Statutes of the Realm, reads <em>mutare</em> in the active, +instead of <em>mutari</em> in the passive.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> The argument is lengthily and moderately stated +in a <cite>Times</cite> leader for May 3, 1830.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> This passage confirms what is said in the Introduction +as to Macaulay’s personal familiarity with synagogue +usages.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> Matthew xxvi. 24.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 66, 32.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> Luke x. 29. “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is +from Leviticus xix. 18.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> In its issue of April 3, 1830, the newspaper <cite>John +Bull</cite> (which bore on its title-page the legend, “For +God, the King, and the People”) published a violent +attack on Mr. Grant’s Bill. The article took the form +of a sarcastic plea for the emancipation of the gipsies. +There was a further attack on April 25, and on May 23 +the same paper, while rejoicing at the rejection of Mr. +Grant’s “romantic and un-Christian Bill,” expressed its +dissatisfaction with the speeches of the opponents of +Jewish emancipation. They were altogether too conciliatory +and tolerant to please <em>John Bull</em>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> Sir Robert Inglis (1786-1855) entered Parliament in +1824. He opposed the various Catholic Relief Bills and +the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Sir Robert +Peel had supported the Catholic claims, and Inglis +thereupon successfully opposed him (1829) as candidate +for the University of Oxford. Inglis continued +to represent the University until his withdrawal from +parliamentary life. He persistently opposed the Jewish +emancipation. “Inglis was an old-fashioned Tory, a +strong Churchman, with many prejudices and no great +ability” (<cite>Dictionary of National Biography</cite>).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832) supported +Grant’s first resolution in 1830; in the interim he had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> +died. Mackintosh, who entered the House in 1813, +enjoyed much reputation as a philosopher.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> The Member for Oldham was the noted William +Cobbett (1762-1835), who, after an extraordinary +career in England and America, entered the first Reformed +Parliament. Cobbett was very violent in his +opposition to Jewish liberties. See note 24.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> The Albigenses, who took their name from one of +their strongholds, the town of Albi on the Tarn, were +an anti-sacerdotal sect in the South of France during the +twelfth and thirteenth centuries, infected with Manichæan +heresy. They suffered the most horrible cruelties +in the crusade carried on against them from 1209 to 1218 +under the command of Simon de Montfort, the father +of the Simon de Montfort so well known in English +history. See T. F. Tout, “The Empire and the +Papacy,” pp. 216, 401.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> See note 6.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> On March 1, 1833, Mr. Hill presented a petition +by Unitarians in favour of the “removal of all Religious +Disqualifications still existing, and especially for the removal +of the Disabilities affecting the Jews.” It was on +this occasion that Cobbett raised the objection to which +Macaulay’s argument is the reply. The reference to +Paine’s “Age of Reason” is also a covert hit at Cobbett, +who reprinted Paine’s work.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> Macaulay here overstates the case. The synagogue +has at various times been reluctant to receive and +unwilling to seek proselytes. But it does not reject +them.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> Lord George Gordon (1751-1793), the third son of +Cosmo George, Duke of Gordon, was charged with +high treason for having in 1780 headed terrible riots in +London directed against the removal of certain Roman +Catholic disabilities. He was acquitted on the ground<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> +that he had no treasonable intentions. He afterwards +embraced the Jewish faith, and was received into the +covenant of Abraham in Birmingham, but without +the sanction of the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities in +London. A vivid description of the “No Popery” riots +of 1780 will be found in Dickens’ “Barnaby Rudge,” +which also contains a reference to Lord George’s change +of religion.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> In the report of Grant’s speech in the <cite>Times</cite> of +April 18, 1833, occurs this passage:—</p> + +<p>“Now with respect to the supposed anti-social principles +of the Jews, the most sacred of their books had +told them to ‘Seek the peace of the city whither I have +caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto +the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have +peace’ [Jeremiah xxix. 7]. This principle was fully +recognised by the Jews under Napoleon, who asked +whether they held themselves bound, as citizens of the +State in which they resided, by the laws and customs of +that State? The Sanhedrin replied that every Jew, regarded +as a citizen by the State, must obey the laws of +the country which protected them and conform to the +regulations of the civil code; in short, that Israelites +were bound to consider such countries as their own, and +serve and defend them to the utmost. In a catechism of +the elements of the Jewish faith, intended for the use +of Hebrew youths, it was stated that the Messiah not +having come, the king under whose protection they +lived must be considered as a King of Israel, and that +the country in which they enjoyed such protection was +to be looked upon in the same light as the land of their +forefathers.”</p> + +<p>Grant followed this up by a masterly survey of the +relations of Jews to various States in the past and +present, and cited evidence of the patriotism and good<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> +citizenship of Jews wherever they had been permitted +an opportunity of displaying those qualities.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> In Hansard’s report (col. 236) Macaulay finished +the paragraph with the words: “Why not try the +same experiment which has been tried in France and +Prussia, and which was now trying in the United States +of America?” In the same debate (col. 342), in the +report of Mr. Joseph Hume’s speech, occurs the passage: +“He had a letter in his hand, though he would not +trouble the House by reading it, from Mr. Quincy +Adams, the late President of the United States, stating +that there were no better citizens than the Jews, and +expressing the hope that ere long the whole of Europe +would see the justice and wisdom of freely conceding to +them the fullest political privileges.”</p> + +</div> + + +<h3><em>FOREIGN EDITIONS</em></h3> + +<p>[The numbers in square brackets at the end of the entries +indicate the press-marks of the copies in the British +Museum.]</p> + +<p class="center no-indent">(<em>a</em>) <span class="smcap">Macaulay’s Essay</span></p> + +<p>(1) [French]. <em>Essais politiques et philosophiques par Lord +Macaulay, Traduits par M. Guillaume Guizot.</em> Paris, +1862. Pp. 380-398. [12273 k 3.]</p> + +<p>(2) [Dutch]. <em>Historische en letterkundige Schetsen door Lord +Macaulay. In het Hollandsch overgebragt door Dr. A. +Pierson.</em> Haarlem, 1865. I. 105-120. [12272 aa 23.]</p> + +<p>(3) [Italian]. <em>Saggi biografici e critici di Tommaso Babington +Macaulay. Versione dall’ Inglese con note di Cesare Rovighi.</em> +Torino, 1859-1866. V. 288-302. [12273 aa 3.]</p> + +<p>(4) [English text, with Introduction and Notes in +German]. <em>Civil Disabilities of the Jews. Eine 1831 +veröffentlichte Abhandlung von Thomas Babington Macaulay.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span> +Herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Dr. F. +Fischer.</em> Berlin, 1882. [4033 f 32 (10).]</p> + +<p>(5) [Roumanian]. The son of Prince John Ghica +(for some time Roumanian minister at the Court of +St. James’), who was educated in England, translated +Macaulay’s Essay on the “Civil Disabilities of the +Jews” into Roumanian. The translation appeared as +a small pamphlet in Bucharest. Political exigencies +and the rise of anti-Jewish feeling in Roumania demanded +the suppression of the translation, to avoid +awkward questions and to remove a possible bar to the +young man’s career. The pamphlet has in consequence +almost completely disappeared. A few copies, +however, have been saved, and one of them is in the +library of the Rev. Dr. M. Gaster.</p> + + +<p class="center no-indent">(<em>b</em>) <span class="smcap">Macaulay’s Speech</span></p> + +<p>(1) A German translation of Macaulay’s Speech on +“Jewish Disabilities” was published in 1881, in reply +to the anti-Semitic campaign of Stöcker and Henrici. +The full title is Macaulay’s <cite>Rede für die Emancipation der +Juden gehalten im Englischen Unterhaus, am 17 April 1833</cite>. +<em>Übersetzt von A. E.</em> Frankfurt a. Main, 1881. [4033 +f 31 (12).]</p> + +<p>(2) A Spanish translation will be found on pp. 109-122 +of <em>Discursos Parlamentarios de Lord Macaulay, Traducidos +del Inglés por Daniel López</em>. Madrid, 1885. [8139 aa 66.]</p> +<br> +<br> + +<p class="center no-indent fs90 wsp"> +Printed by <span class="smcap">Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.</span><br> +Edinburgh & London<br> +</p> +<br> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75879 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/75879-h/images/cover.jpg b/75879-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a303474 --- /dev/null +++ b/75879-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/75879-h/images/i_062fp.jpg b/75879-h/images/i_062fp.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2c9cf9 --- /dev/null +++ b/75879-h/images/i_062fp.jpg diff --git a/75879-h/images/i_frontispiece.jpg b/75879-h/images/i_frontispiece.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3e9cafe --- /dev/null +++ b/75879-h/images/i_frontispiece.jpg |
