{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75879/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75879","id":"gutenberg_75879","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75879","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jews -- Great Britain"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note\n  Italic text displayed as: _italic_\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n  _ESSAY AND SPEECH\n  ON\n  JEWISH DISABILITIES_\n\n  BY\n  LORD MACAULAY\n\n  EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY\n\n  ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A.\n  AND THE\n  REV. S. LEVY, M.A.\n\n  _Second Edition_\n\n  Printed for the\n  _Jewish Historical Society of England\n  By_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n  EDINBURGH\n\n  1910\n\n\n\n\n_NOTE_\n\n\n_The authors and editors of all volumes published by the Jewish\nHistorical Society of England accept full and sole responsibility for\nthe views expressed by them._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  EDITORS\u2019 INTRODUCTION                                                7\n\n  MACAULAY\u2019S ESSAY                                                    19\n\n  MACAULAY\u2019S SPEECH                                                   42\n\n  EDITORS\u2019 NOTES                                                      63\n\n\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n  PORTRAIT OF MACAULAY        _Frontispiece_\n\n  The frontispiece is a reduced photograph of\n  the portrait by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A. The\n  original is in the National Portrait Gallery, London\n  (No. 453).\n\n\n  MACAULAY\u2019S AUTOGRAPH         _To face page 62_\n\n  A facsimile reproduction of Macaulay\u2019s signature\n  at the end of a letter to Macvey Napier,\n  Editor of the _Edinburgh Review_, dated 10th Feb.\n  1839. The original is in the British Museum\n  (Add. MS. 34,620 f. 83 b).\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe first edition of this reprint of Macaulay\u2019s famous essay and\nspeech on the removal of Jewish disabilities was timed for publication\non December 28, 1909, the fiftieth anniversary of their author\u2019s\ndeath. It was intended to serve a double object. In the first place,\nit was a tribute to the memory of Macaulay in grateful recognition\nof his strenuous advocacy of the cause of Jewish emancipation; and\nin the second place, it was designed to be a further memento of the\ncelebration organised by the Jewish Historical Society of England in\n1908, on the occasion of the jubilee of the admission of Jews into\nParliament.\n\nNeither the essay nor the speech was Macaulay\u2019s first contribution to\nthe cause of Jewish emancipation. Thomas Babington (afterwards Lord)\nMacaulay (1800-1859) entered the House of Commons at the General\nElection of 1830. On April 5, in that same year, Mr. (afterwards Sir)\nRobert Grant moved to bring in a Bill to remove Jewish political\ndisabilities. The motion was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis. When Inglis\nresumed his seat, \u201cSir James Mackintosh and Mr. Macaulay,\u201d as Hansard\nreports, \u201crose together, but the latter, being a new Member, was\ncalled for by the House.\u201d Thus, Macaulay\u2019s maiden speech was delivered\nin behalf of the Jewish cause. It made considerable stir. Sir James\nMackintosh took part in the debate later, and after complimenting the\nyoung orator, said: \u201cI do not rise, therefore, to supply any defects\nin that address, for indeed there were none that I could find; but it\nis principally to absolve my own conscience that I offer myself to the\nattention of the House.\u201d\n\nWriting to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Isaac Lyon Goldsmid on April 13, 1830,\nLord Holland suggested \u201cthat it might promote your cause to print a\ncorrect copy of the late triumphant debate in the Commons in the shape\nof a pamphlet during holidays. If Mr. Grant, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr.\nMacaulay, and Dr. Lushington could be prevailed upon to correct their\nspeeches for that publication, it would be a valuable manual for all\nthose who in or out of Parliament are disposed to urge the facts and\nreasons in your favour\u201d (_Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society\nof England_, iv. 158). This advice does not seem to have been followed,\nnor did Macaulay himself reprint this particular speech, but it was\nincluded in Vizetelly\u2019s two volumes of Macaulay\u2019s Speeches, published\nin 1853, much to their author\u2019s indignation. The speech occupies the\nfirst place in Vol. I. In the second volume of Vizetelly\u2019s edition is\nanother speech by Macaulay, delivered in the House on March 31, 1841,\non the Jews\u2019 Declaration Bill. Angered by Vizetelly\u2019s publication,\nMacaulay himself brought out an edition of his speeches. He included\nneither of the two speeches which appear in Vizetelly, but inserted the\nmore powerful and effective speech delivered on April 17, 1833.\n\nThe production of the essay seems in the first instance to have been\ndue to Macaulay\u2019s own initiative. For on April 29, 1830, a little over\nthree weeks after the 1830 debate, he wrote to Macvey Napier, the\neditor of the _Edinburgh Review_: \u201cIf, as I rather fear, we should be\nbeaten in Parliament this year about the Jews, a short pungent article\non that question might be useful and taking. It ought to come within\nthe compass of a single sheet\u201d (_Selection from the Correspondence of\nthe late Macvey Napier_, London, 1879, p. 80). In the course of the\nnext few months Macaulay was strengthened in his conviction of the\nprobable efficacy of an essay on the Jewish case by the representations\nwhich were made to him in the interval, apparently as an indirect\nresult of Lord Holland\u2019s original suggestion for the reprint in\npamphlet form of the debate in the House of Commons on April 5, 1830.\nThus in another letter to Macvey Napier, dated October 16, 1830, he\nstated: \u201cThe Jews have been urging me to say something about their\nclaims; and I really think that the question might be discussed, both\non general and on particular grounds, in a very attractive manner.\nWhat do you think of this plan?\u201d (ibid., pp. 93, 94). On November 27,\n1830, he wrote again: \u201cI have only a minute to write. I will send you\nan article on the Jews next week\u201d (ibid., p. 97). And finally on\nDecember 17, 1830, Macaulay sent the article as promised. \u201cI send you\nan article on the Jews.... I am very busy, or I should have sent you\nthis Jew article before. It is short, and carelessly written, perhaps,\nas to style, but certainly as to penmanship\u201d (ibid., p. 98). The essay\nappeared in the _Edinburgh Review_ in the following month, January\n1831, and thus stands in date between the maiden speech of 1830 and\nthe speech of 1833. In the latter year the House of Commons passed Mr.\nGrant\u2019s Bill through all its stages, though it was not till 1860 that\nthe victory was formally won, after a practical triumph in 1858. It is\ncurious to note that, in the debate of 1830, Mr. Grant appealed to the\nCommons to concede justice to the Jews promptly, and not let the matter\nhang in the balance for thirty years, as had been done with Catholic\nEmancipation. The very interval feared by Mr. Grant separated his\noriginal motion from its final ratification. Macaulay\u2019s essay played a\ngreat part in converting English public opinion. So popular had this\nessay become, so convincing its plea, that it was regarded as the main\nstatement of the Jewish case. Edition after edition of the volume\ncontaining the essay was called for and exhausted. So late as September\n1847, when the Tory organ, the _Quarterly Review_, futilely attempted\nto set up a reasonable case against the Jewish claim, the whole of the\nargument was directed towards rebutting Macaulay\u2019s essay.\n\nThe present edition is a verbal reprint of Macaulay\u2019s own revision.\nIn the notes attention is drawn to some of the modifications which\nthe author introduced, but a few words may here be said on one or two\npoints in which Macaulay\u2019s revision is particularly interesting. Thus,\nin the speech as reported in Hansard (3rd Series, Vol. XVII., col.\n232), there occurs this passage, deleted in the revision:\u2014\n\n \u201cNo charge could be brought against the Jews of evincing any\n disposition to attack the Christian religion, or to offend its\n professors. It was true that one imputation of such a nature had\n lately been thrown out in that House, but it was entirely unfounded.\n _He had seen a great deal of the worship of the Jews_, and he had\n heard a great deal on the subject from others, and _from all that he\n had seen_ and all that he had heard, he was able to say, without the\n slightest fear of contradiction, that there was no part of the Jewish\n worship which was not only not insulting to Christians, but in which\n Christians might not, without the least difficulty, join.\u201d\n\nThe imputation had been made in the House by William Cobbett, on March\n1, 1833. The most noteworthy point is, however, the sentences which\nhave been italicised. They give direct evidence that Macaulay must\noften have visited the synagogue services.\n\nIn the revision of the essay, Macaulay, by omitting a couple of\nsentences, laid himself open to a charge of formal fallacy. Professor\nF. C. Montague (in his edition of the Essays, Vol. I. p. 289) writes:\n\u201cWhen Macaulay asserts the identity of the two propositions\u2014It is right\nthat some person or persons should possess political power, and, Some\nperson or persons must have a right to political power\u2014he commits an\nobvious fallacy.\u201d But in the _Edinburgh Review_ Macaulay continued: \u201cIt\nwill hardly be denied that government is a means for the attainment of\nan end. If men have a right to the end, they have a right to this\u2014that\nthe means shall be such as will accomplish the end.\u201d There is thus no\nfallacy in the argument as Macaulay intended it to be understood. It\nis equally difficult to admit the validity of Professor Montague\u2019s\nfurther comment: \u201cNeither is it true in all cases, and without any\nqualification, that differences of religion are absolutely irrelevant\nto the bestowal of political power. In some cases the differences of\nthought and feeling between the adherents of different creeds are so\nmany and so considerable that harmonious co-operation in the same body\npolitic becomes almost inconceivable. Whilst Mohammedanism and Hinduism\nremain what they are, it is scarcely conceivable that Mohammedans and\nHindus could really blend in one constituent body for the choice of\na parliament which should govern India.\u201d It remains to be proved by\nexperience whether the results of Lord Morley\u2019s constitutional reforms\nwill not belie this fear, and whether the joint admission of various\nsects to political responsibility will not, in the end, mitigate\nsectarian animosities, under the impulse of a common striving for the\ncommon good. And Macaulay\u2019s point is missed by Professor Montague.\nReligion _as such_ must not be made a bar to admission to political\nrights. Macaulay did not argue that power should be placed in the\nhands of those unfit to use it for the general good. But assuming the\nfitness proved, their religion must not be a ground for exclusion.\nEvery one admitted that the fitness had been proved in the case of the\nJews. Inglis, who preceded Macaulay, and, of course, on the opposite\nside, said in the 1833 debate: \u201cHe believed that there was no portion\nof the community that furnished a smaller relative proportion of\ncriminals, or that were better conducted, than the Jews were.\u201d Another\nopponent of the Bill, Mr. Halcomb, said: \u201cHe admitted that the Jews\nwere a body against whose moral character nothing could be adduced;\nthat they were good and loyal citizens of the king.\u201d Mr. William Roche\n(a Catholic supporter of the Bill) might well comment on all this: \u201cIf,\nSir, the Jews have proved themselves good subjects in this country, and\nin all other countries where they have been domesticated and admitted\nto political freedom, that is all we have a right to look to, leaving\nto them, as to every other sect, perfect liberty of conscience in their\nspiritual concerns.\u201d Of course Professor Montague does not dispute the\nvalidity of Macaulay\u2019s plea as applied to _the Jews_. He describes the\nsuccess of the arguments in the essay as complete, and their justice as\ngenerally admitted.\n\nJ. Cotter Morison, in his life of Macaulay in the \u201cEnglish Men of\nLetters\u201d series, advanced the view \u201cthat Macaulay\u2019s natural aptitude\nwas rather oratorical than literary.... It is no exaggeration to say\nthat as an orator he moves in a higher intellectual plane than he does\nas a writer.... In his speeches we find him nearly without exception\nlaying down broad luminous principles, based upon reason, and those\nboundless stores of historical illustration, from which he argues with\nequal brevity and force. It is interesting to compare his treatment of\nthe same subject in an essay and a speech. His speech on the Maynooth\ngrant and his essay on Mr. Gladstone\u2019s _Church and State_ deal with\npractically the same question, and few persons would hesitate to give\nthe preference to the speech\u201d (pp. 131, 132). Jewish disabilities\nis another subject which occasioned both an essay and a speech from\nMacaulay. Here, too, the speech, by comparison, must be judged to be\nmore effective than the essay. Certainly there is no passage in the\nessay which equals in dignity and strength and eloquence the following\nsentences in the speech:\u2014\n\n \u201cNobody knows better than my honourable friend the Member for the\n University of Oxford that there is nothing in their national character\n which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. He knows that,\n in the infancy of civilisation, when our island was as savage as New\n Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when\n scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome,\n this contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their\n splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of\n sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural\n philosophers, their historians and their poets. What nation ever\n contended more manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence\n and religion? What nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal\n proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if, in the\n course of many centuries, the oppressed descendants of warriors and\n sages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, while\n excluded from the blessings of law, and bowed down under the yoke of\n slavery, they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and of\n slaves, shall we consider this as matter of reproach to them? Shall we\n not rather consider it as matter of shame and remorse to ourselves?\n Let us do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House\n of Commons. Let us open to them every career in which ability and\n energy can be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume\n to say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no\n heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees\u201d (_Infra_, pp. 60, 61).\n\nWe may at this distance of time prefer the speech to the essay.\nNevertheless, we cannot but be profoundly grateful for both, and\nare bound to recognise and appreciate the deep influence they both\nexercised in persuading public opinion to grant the Jews of England\ncomplete equality before the law with all other denominations. Macaulay\nwas brought up in a home which was the headquarters of the movement\nfor the abolition of slavery. He carried the lessons of his youth into\nthe work of his manhood. He championed the cause of the persecuted and\nthe wronged in various human relations. But nothing that he did has\nraised a more enduring monument to his name than his enthusiastic and\ntriumphant advocacy of the cause of Jewish freedom.\n\n\n\n\nCivil Disabilities of the Jews\n\nFROM\n\n\u201cTHE EDINBURGH REVIEW,\u201d _Jan. 1831_\n\n_Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations affecting Jews in\nEngland_\n\n8vo. London: 1829[1]\n\n\nThe distinguished member of the House of Commons who, towards the close\nof the late Parliament, brought forward a proposition for the relief of\nthe Jews, has given notice of his intention to renew it.[2] The force\nof reason, in the last session, carried the measure through one stage,\nin spite of the opposition of power. Reason and power are now on the\nsame side; and we have little doubt that they will conjointly achieve a\ndecisive victory.[3] In order to contribute our share to the success of\njust principles, we propose to pass in review, as rapidly as possible,\nsome of the arguments, or phrases claiming to be arguments, which have\nbeen employed to vindicate a system full of absurdity and injustice.\n\nThe constitution, it is said, is essentially Christian; and therefore\nto admit Jews to office is to destroy the constitution. Nor is the\nJew injured by being excluded from political power. For no man has any\nright to power. A man has a right to his property; a man has a right to\nbe protected from personal injury. These rights the law allows to the\nJew; and with these rights it would be atrocious to interfere. But it\nis a mere matter of favour to admit any man to political power; and no\nman can justly complain that he is shut out from it.\n\nWe cannot but admire the ingenuity of this contrivance for shifting\nthe burden of the proof from those to whom it properly belongs, and\nwho would, we suspect, find it rather cumbersome. Surely no Christian\ncan deny that every human being has a right to be allowed every\ngratification which produces no harm to others, and to be spared\nevery mortification which produces no good to others. Is it not a\nsource of mortification to a class of men that they are excluded from\npolitical power? If it be, they have, on Christian principles, a right\nto be freed from that mortification, unless it can be shown that\ntheir exclusion is necessary for the averting of some greater evil.\nThe presumption is evidently in favour of toleration. It is for the\nprosecutor to make out his case.\n\nThe strange argument which we are considering would prove too much\neven for those who advance it. If no man has a right to political\npower, then neither Jew nor Gentile has such a right. The whole\nfoundation of government is taken away. But if government be taken\naway, the property and the persons of men are insecure; and it is\nacknowledged that men have a right to their property and to personal\nsecurity. If it be right that the property of men should be protected,\nand if this can only be done by means of government, then it must be\nright that government should exist. Now there cannot be government\nunless some person or persons possess political power. Therefore it\nis right that some person or persons should possess political power.\nThat is to say, some person or persons must have a right to political\npower.[4]\n\nIt is because men are not in the habit of considering what the end\nof government is, that Catholic disabilities and Jewish disabilities\nhave been suffered to exist so long. We hear of essentially Protestant\ngovernments and essentially Christian governments, words which mean\njust as much as essentially Protestant cookery, or essentially\nChristian horsemanship. Government exists for the purpose of keeping\nthe peace, for the purpose of compelling us to settle our disputes\nby arbitration instead of settling them by blows, for the purpose of\ncompelling us to supply our wants by industry instead of supplying\nthem by rapine. This is the only operation for which the machinery\nof government is peculiarly adapted, the only operation which wise\ngovernments ever propose to themselves as their chief object. If there\nis any class of people who are not interested, or who do not think\nthemselves interested, in the security of property and the maintenance\nof order, that class ought to have no share of the powers which exist\nfor the purpose of securing property and maintaining order. But why\na man should be less fit to exercise those powers because he wears a\nbeard, because he does not eat ham, because he goes to the synagogue on\nSaturdays instead of going to the church on Sundays, we cannot conceive.\n\nThe points of difference between Christianity and Judaism have very\nmuch to do with a man\u2019s fitness to be a bishop or a rabbi. But they\nhave no more to do with his fitness to be a magistrate, a legislator,\nor a minister of finance, than with his fitness to be a cobbler. Nobody\nhas ever thought of compelling cobblers to make any declaration on the\ntrue faith of a Christian. Any man would rather have his shoes mended\nby a heretical cobbler than by a person who had subscribed all the\nthirty-nine articles, but had never handled an awl. Men act thus, not\nbecause they are indifferent to religion, but because they do not see\nwhat religion has to do with the mending of their shoes. Yet religion\nhas as much to do with the mending of shoes as with the budget and\nthe army estimates. We have surely had several signal proofs within\nthe last twenty years that a very good Christian may be a very bad\nChancellor of the Exchequer.[5]\n\nBut it would be monstrous, say the persecutors, that Jews\nshould legislate for a Christian community. This is a palpable\nmisrepresentation. What is proposed is, not that the Jews should\nlegislate for a Christian community, but that a legislature composed\nof Christians and Jews should legislate for a community composed of\nChristians and Jews. On nine hundred and ninety-nine questions out of a\nthousand, on all questions of police, of finance, of civil and criminal\nlaw, of foreign policy, the Jew, as a Jew, has no interest hostile to\nthat of the Christian, or even to that of the Churchman. On questions\nrelating to the ecclesiastical establishment, the Jew and the Churchman\nmay differ. But they cannot differ more widely than the Catholic and\nthe Churchman, or the Independent and the Churchman. The principle\nthat Churchmen ought to monopolise the whole power of the state would\nat least have an intelligible meaning. The principle that Christians\nought to monopolise it has no meaning at all. For no question connected\nwith the ecclesiastical institutions of the country can possibly come\nbefore Parliament, with respect to which there will not be as wide a\ndifference between Christians as there can be between any Christian and\nany Jew.\n\nIn fact, the Jews are not now excluded from political power. They\npossess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate large\nfortunes, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made\nbetween civil privileges and political power is a distinction without\na difference. Privileges are power. Civil and political are synonymous\nwords, the one derived from the Latin, the other from the Greek. Nor is\nthis mere verbal quibbling. If we look for a moment at the facts of the\ncase, we shall see that the things are inseparable, or rather identical.\n\nThat a Jew should be a judge in a Christian country would be most\nshocking. But he may be a juryman. He may try issues of fact; and no\nharm is done. But if he should be suffered to try issues of law, there\nis an end of the constitution. He may sit in a box plainly dressed,\nand return verdicts. But that he should sit on the bench in a black\ngown and white wig, and grant new trials, would be an abomination not\nto be thought of among baptized people. The distinction is certainly\nmost philosophical.\n\nWhat power in civilised society is so great as that of the creditor\nover the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from\nhim the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to\nhim a power more despotic by far than that of the king and all his\ncabinet.\n\nIt would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament. But a Jew may make\nmoney; and money may make Members of Parliament. Gatton and Old Sarum\nmay be the property of a Hebrew. An elector of Penryn will take ten\npounds from Shylock rather than nine pounds nineteen shillings and\nelevenpence three farthings from Antonio.[6] To this no objection is\nmade. That a Jew should possess the substance of legislative power,\nthat he should command eight votes on every division as if he were the\ngreat Duke of Newcastle[7] himself, is exactly as it should be. But\nthat he should pass the bar and sit down on those mysterious cushions\nof green leather, that he should cry \u201chear\u201d and \u201corder,\u201d and talk about\nbeing on his legs, and being, for one, free to say this and to say\nthat, would be a profanation sufficient to bring ruin on the country.\n\nThat a Jew should be privy councillor to a Christian king would\nbe an eternal disgrace to the nation. But the Jew may govern the\nmoney-market, and the money-market may govern the world. The minister\nmay be in doubt as to his scheme of finance till he has been closeted\nwith a Jew. A congress of sovereigns may be forced to summon the Jew to\ntheir assistance. The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper\nmay be worth more than the royal word of three kings, or the national\nfaith of three new American republics. But that he should put Right\nHonourable before his name would be the most frightful of national\ncalamities.\n\nIt was in this way that some of our politicians reasoned about the\nIrish Catholics. The Catholics ought to have no political power. The\nsun of England is set for ever if the Catholics exercise political\npower. Give the Catholics everything else; but keep political power\nfrom them. These wise men did not see that, when everything else had\nbeen given, political power had been given. They continued to repeat\ntheir cuckoo song, when it was no longer a question whether Catholics\nshould have political power or not, when a Catholic Association\nbearded the Parliament, when a Catholic agitator exercised infinitely\nmore authority than the Lord Lieutenant.[8]\n\nIf it is our duty as Christians to exclude the Jews from political\npower, it must be our duty to treat them as our ancestors treated them,\nto murder them, and banish them, and rob them. For in that way, and in\nthat way alone, can we really deprive them of political power. If we do\nnot adopt this course, we may take away the shadow, but we must leave\nthem the substance. We may do enough to pain and irritate them; but we\nshall not do enough to secure ourselves from danger, if danger really\nexists. Where wealth is, there power must inevitably be.\n\nThe English Jews, we are told, are not Englishmen. They are a separate\npeople, living locally in this island, but living morally and\npolitically in communion with their brethren who are scattered over\nall the world. An English Jew looks on a Dutch or a Portuguese Jew as\nhis countryman, and on an English Christian as a stranger. This want\nof patriotic feeling, it is said, renders a Jew unfit to exercise\npolitical functions.\n\nThe argument has in it something plausible; but a close examination\nshows it to be quite unsound. Even if the alleged facts are admitted,\nstill the Jews are not the only people who have preferred their sect\nto their country. The feeling of patriotism, when society is in a\nhealthful state, springs up by a natural and inevitable association,\nin the minds of citizens who know that they owe all their comforts and\npleasures to the bond which unites them in one community. But, under a\npartial and oppressive government, these associations cannot acquire\nthat strength which they have in a better state of things. Men are\ncompelled to seek from their party that protection which they ought\nto receive from their country, and they, by a natural consequence,\ntransfer to their party that affection which they would otherwise have\nfelt for their country. The Huguenots of France called in the help of\nEngland against their Catholic kings. The Catholics of France called in\nthe help of Spain against a Huguenot king. Would it be fair to infer,\nthat at present the French Protestants would wish to see their religion\nmade dominant by the help of a Prussian or English army? Surely not.\nAnd why is it that they are not willing, as they formerly were willing,\nto sacrifice the interests of their country to the interests of their\nreligious persuasion? The reason is obvious: they were persecuted then,\nand are not persecuted now. The English Puritans, under Charles the\nFirst, prevailed on the Scotch to invade England. Do the Protestant\nDissenters of our time wish to see the Church put down by an invasion\nof foreign Calvinists? If not, to what cause are we to attribute\nthe change? Surely to this, that the Protestant Dissenters are far\nbetter treated now than in the seventeenth century. Some of the most\nillustrious public men that England ever produced were inclined to\ntake refuge from the tyranny of Laud in North America.[9] Was this\nbecause Presbyterians and Independents are incapable of loving their\ncountry? But it is idle to multiply instances. Nothing is so offensive\nto a man who knows anything of history or of human nature as to hear\nthose who exercise the powers of government accuse any sect of foreign\nattachments. If there be any proposition universally true in politics\nit is this, that foreign attachments are the fruit of domestic misrule.\nIt has always been the trick of bigots to make their subjects miserable\nat home, and then to complain that they look for relief abroad; to\ndivide society, and to wonder that it is not united; to govern as if a\nsection of the state were the whole, and to censure the other sections\nof the state for their want of patriotic spirit. If the Jews have not\nfelt towards England like children, it is because she has treated them\nlike a stepmother. There is no feeling which more certainly develops\nitself in the minds of men living under tolerably good government than\nthe feeling of patriotism. Since the beginning of the world, there\nnever was any nation, or any large portion of any nation, not cruelly\noppressed, which was wholly destitute of that feeling. To make it,\ntherefore, ground of accusation against a class of men, that they are\nnot patriotic, is the most vulgar legerdemain of sophistry. It is the\nlogic which the wolf employs against the lamb. It is to accuse the\nmouth of the stream of poisoning the source.[10]\n\nIf the English Jews really felt a deadly hatred to England, if the\nweekly prayer of their synagogues were that all the curses denounced\nby Ezekiel on Tyre and Egypt might fall on London, if, in their\nsolemn feasts, they called down blessings on those who should dash\ntheir children to pieces on the stones, still, we say, their hatred\nto their countrymen would not be more intense than that which sects\nof Christians have often borne to each other. But in fact the feeling\nof the Jews is not such. It is precisely what, in the situation in\nwhich they are placed, we should expect it to be. They are treated\nfar better than the French Protestants were treated in the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries, or than our Puritans were treated in the\ntime of Laud. They, therefore, have no rancour against the government\nor against their countrymen. It will not be denied that they are far\nbetter affected to the state than the followers of Coligni or Vane.[11]\nBut they are not so well treated as the dissenting sects of Christians\nare now treated in England; and on this account, and, we firmly\nbelieve, on this account alone, they have a more exclusive spirit. Till\nwe have carried the experiment farther, we are not entitled to conclude\nthat they cannot be made Englishmen altogether. The statesman who\ntreats them as aliens, and then abuses them for not entertaining all\nthe feelings of natives, is as unreasonable as the tyrant who punished\ntheir fathers for not making bricks without straw.\n\nRulers must not be suffered thus to absolve themselves of their solemn\nresponsibility. It does not lie in their mouths to say that a sect\nis not patriotic. It is their business to make it patriotic. History\nand reason clearly indicate the means. The English Jews are, as far\nas we can see, precisely what our government has made them. They are\nprecisely what any sect, what any class of men, treated as they have\nbeen treated, would have been. If all the red-haired people in Europe\nhad, during centuries, been outraged and oppressed, banished from\nthis place, imprisoned in that, deprived of their money, deprived of\ntheir teeth, convicted of the most improbable crimes on the feeblest\nevidence, dragged at horses\u2019 tails, hanged, tortured, burned alive;\nif, when manners became milder, they had still been subject to\ndebasing restrictions and exposed to vulgar insults, locked up in\nparticular streets in some countries, pelted and ducked by the rabble\nin others, excluded everywhere from magistracies and honours, what\nwould be the patriotism of gentlemen with red hair? And if, under such\ncircumstances, a proposition were made for admitting red-haired men\nto office, how striking a speech might an eloquent admirer of our old\ninstitutions deliver against so revolutionary a measure! \u201cThese men,\u201d\nhe might say, \u201cscarcely consider themselves as Englishmen. They think\na red-haired Frenchman or a red-haired German more closely connected\nwith them than a man with brown hair born in their own parish. If a\nforeign sovereign patronises red hair, they love him better than their\nown native king. They are not Englishmen: they cannot be Englishmen:\nnature has forbidden it: experience proves it to be impossible. Right\nto political power they have none; for no man has a right to political\npower. Let them enjoy personal security; let their property be under\nthe protection of the law. But if they ask for leave to exercise power\nover a community of which they are only half members, a community the\nconstitution of which is essentially dark-haired, let us answer them in\nthe words of our wise ancestors, _Nolumus leges Angli\u00e6 mutari_.\u201d[12]\n\nBut it is said, the Scriptures declare that the Jews are to be restored\nto their own country; and the whole nation looks forward to that\nrestoration. They are, therefore, not so deeply interested as others in\nthe prosperity of England. It is not their home, but merely the place\nof their sojourn, the house of their bondage. This argument, which\nfirst appeared in the _Times_ newspaper,[13] and which has attracted a\ndegree of attention proportioned not so much to its own intrinsic force\nas to the general talent with which that journal is conducted, belongs\nto a class of sophisms by which the most hateful persecutions may\neasily be justified. To charge men with practical consequences which\nthey themselves deny is disingenuous in controversy; it is atrocious\nin government. The doctrine of predestination, in the opinion of many\npeople, tends to make those who hold it utterly immoral. And certainly\nit would seem that a man who believes his eternal destiny to be already\nirrevocably fixed is likely to indulge his passions without restraint\nand to neglect his religious duties. If he is an heir of wrath, his\nexertions must be unavailing. If he is preordained to life, they must\nbe superfluous. But would it be wise to punish every man who holds\nthe higher doctrines of Calvinism, as if he had actually committed\nall those crimes which we know some Antinomians to have committed?\nAssuredly not. The fact notoriously is that there are many Calvinists\nas moral in their conduct as any Arminian, and many Arminians as loose\nas any Calvinist.\n\nIt is altogether impossible to reason from the opinions which a man\nprofesses to his feelings and his actions; and in fact no person is\never such a fool as to reason thus, except when he wants a pretext\nfor persecuting his neighbours. A Christian is commanded, under the\nstrongest sanctions, to be just in all his dealings. Yet to how many\nof the twenty-four millions of professing Christians in these islands\nwould any man in his senses lend a thousand pounds without security? A\nman who should act, for one day, on the supposition that all the people\nabout him were influenced by the religion which they professed, would\nfind himself ruined before night; and no man ever does act on that\nsupposition in any of the ordinary concerns of life, in borrowing, in\nlending, in buying, or in selling. But when any of our fellow-creatures\nare to be oppressed, the case is different. Then we represent those\nmotives which we know to be so feeble for good as omnipotent for evil.\nThen we lay to the charge of our victims all the vices and follies to\nwhich their doctrines, however remotely, seem to tend. We forget that\nthe same weakness, the same laxity, the same disposition to prefer the\npresent to the future, which make men worse than a good religion, make\nthem better than a bad one.\n\nIt was in this way that our ancestors reasoned, and that some people in\nour time still reason, about the Catholics. A Papist believes himself\nbound to obey the pope. The pope has issued a bull deposing Queen\nElizabeth. Therefore every Papist will treat her grace as an usurper.\nTherefore every Papist is a traitor. Therefore every Papist ought to\nbe hanged, drawn, and quartered. To this logic we owe some of the most\nhateful laws that ever disgraced our history. Surely the answer lies on\nthe surface. The Church of Rome may have commanded these men to treat\nthe queen as an usurper. But she has commanded them to do many other\nthings which they have never done. She enjoins her priests to observe\nstrict purity. You are always taunting them with their licentiousness.\nShe commands all her followers to fast often, to be charitable to the\npoor, to take no interest for money, to fight no duels, to see no\nplays. Do they obey these injunctions? If it be the fact that very few\nof them strictly observe her precepts, when her precepts are opposed\nto their passions and interests, may not loyalty, may not humanity,\nmay not the love of ease, may not the fear of death, be sufficient\nto prevent them from executing those wicked orders which the Church\nof Rome has issued against the sovereign of England? When we know\nthat many of these people do not care enough for their religion to go\nwithout beef on a Friday for it, why should we think that they will run\nthe risk of being racked and hanged for it?\n\nPeople are now reasoning about the Jews as our fathers reasoned about\nthe Papists. The law which is inscribed on the walls of the synagogues\nprohibits covetousness.[14] But if we were to say that a Jew mortgagee\nwould not foreclose because God had commanded him not to covet his\nneighbour\u2019s house, everybody would think us out of our wits. Yet it\npasses for an argument to say that a Jew will take no interest in\nthe prosperity of the country in which he lives, that he will not\ncare how bad its laws and police may be, how heavily it may be taxed,\nhow often it may be conquered and given up to spoil, because God has\npromised that, by some unknown means and at some undetermined time,\nperhaps ten thousand years hence, the Jews shall migrate to Palestine.\nIs not this the most profound ignorance of human nature? Do we not\nknow that what is remote and indefinite affects men far less than\nwhat is near and certain? The argument, too, applies to Christians as\nstrongly as to Jews. The Christian believes as well as the Jew, that\nat some future period the present order of things will come to an end.\nNay, many Christians believe that the Messiah will shortly establish\na kingdom on the earth, and reign visibly over all its inhabitants.\nWhether this doctrine be orthodox or not we shall not here inquire. The\nnumber of people who hold it is very much greater than the number of\nJews residing in England. Many of those who hold it are distinguished\nby rank, wealth, and ability. It is preached from pulpits both of the\nScottish and of the English Church. Noblemen and Members of Parliament\nhave written in defence of it. Now wherein does this doctrine differ,\nas far as its political tendency is concerned, from the doctrine of\nthe Jews? If a Jew is unfit to legislate for us because he believes\nthat he or his remote descendants will be removed to Palestine, can we\nsafely open the House of Commons to a fifth-monarchy man, who expects\nthat before this generation shall pass away, all the kingdoms of the\nearth will be swallowed up in one divine empire?\n\nDoes a Jew engage less eagerly than a Christian in any competition\nwhich the law leaves open to him? Is he less active and regular in\nhis business than his neighbours? Does he furnish his house meanly,\nbecause he is a pilgrim and sojourner in the land? Does the expectation\nof being restored to the country of his fathers make him insensible\nto the fluctuations of the stock-exchange? Does he, in arranging his\nprivate affairs, ever take into the account the chance of his migrating\nto Palestine? If not, why are we to suppose that feelings which\nnever influence his dealings as a merchant, or his dispositions as a\ntestator, will acquire a boundless influence over him as soon as he\nbecomes a magistrate or a legislator?\n\nThere is another argument which we would not willingly treat with\nlevity, and which yet we scarcely know how to treat seriously.\nScripture, it is said, is full of terrible denunciations against the\nJews. It is foretold that they are to be wanderers. Is it then right to\ngive them a home? It is foretold that they are to be oppressed. Can we\nwith propriety suffer them to be rulers? To admit them to the rights of\ncitizens is manifestly to insult the Divine oracles.\n\nWe allow that to falsify a prophecy inspired by Divine Wisdom would be\na most atrocious crime. It is, therefore, a happy circumstance for our\nfrail species, that it is a crime which no man can possibly commit. If\nwe admit the Jews to seats in Parliament, we shall, by so doing, prove\nthat the prophecies in question, whatever they may mean, do not mean\nthat the Jews shall be excluded from Parliament.\n\nIn fact it is already clear that the prophecies do not bear the meaning\nput upon them by the respectable persons whom we are now answering.\nIn France and in the United States the Jews are already admitted to\nall the rights of citizens. A prophecy, therefore, which should mean\nthat the Jews would never, during the course of their wanderings, be\nadmitted to all the rights of citizens in the places of their sojourn,\nwould be a false prophecy. This, therefore, is not the meaning of the\nprophecies of Scripture.\n\nBut we protest altogether against the practice of confounding prophecy\nwith precept, of setting up predictions which are often obscure against\na morality which is always clear. If actions are to be considered as\njust and good merely because they have been predicted, what action\nwas ever more laudable than that crime which our bigots are now,\nat the end of eighteen centuries, urging us to avenge on the Jews,\nthat crime which made the earth shake and blotted out the sun from\nheaven? The same reasoning which is now employed to vindicate the\ndisabilities imposed on our Hebrew countrymen will equally vindicate\nthe kiss of Judas and the judgment of Pilate. \u201cThe son of man goeth,\nas it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the son of man\nis betrayed.\u201d[15] And woe to those who, in any age or in any country,\ndisobey his benevolent commands under pretence of accomplishing his\npredictions. If this argument justifies the laws now existing against\nthe Jews, it justifies equally all the cruelties which have ever\nbeen committed against them, the sweeping edicts of banishment and\nconfiscation, the dungeon, the rack, and the slow fire. How can we\nexcuse ourselves for leaving property to people who are to \u201cserve their\nenemies in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of\nall things\u201d; for giving protection to the persons of those who are to\n\u201cfear day and night, and to have none assurance of their life\u201d; for not\nseizing on the children of a race whose \u201csons and daughters are to be\ngiven unto another people\u201d?[16]\n\nWe have not so learned the doctrines of him who commanded us to love\nour neighbour as ourselves, and who, when he was called upon to explain\nwhat he meant by a neighbour, selected as an example a heretic and an\nalien.[17] Last year, we remember, it was represented by a pious writer\nin the _John Bull_ newspaper,[18] and by some other equally fervid\nChristians, as a monstrous indecency, that the measure for the relief\nof the Jews should be brought forward in Passion week. One of these\nhumourists ironically recommended that it should be read a second time\non Good Friday. We should have had no objection; nor do we believe\nthat the day could be commemorated in a more worthy manner. We know of\nno day fitter for terminating long hostilities, and repairing cruel\nwrongs, than the day on which the religion of mercy was founded. We\nknow of no day fitter for blotting out from the statute-book the last\ntraces of intolerance than the day on which the spirit of intolerance\nproduced the foulest of all judicial murders, the day on which the list\nof the victims of intolerance, that noble list wherein Socrates and\nMore are enrolled, was glorified by a yet greater and holier name.\n\n\n\n\nA SPEECH\n\nDELIVERED IN A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE OF COMMONS\n\n_On the 17th of April 1833._\n\n\n On the seventeenth of April, 1833, the House of Commons resolved\n itself into a Committee to consider of the civil disabilities of\n the Jews. Mr. Warburton took the chair. Mr. Robert Grant moved the\n following resolution:\u2014\n\n  \u201cThat it is the opinion of this Committee that it is expedient to\n  remove all civil disabilities at present existing with respect to\n  His Majesty\u2019s subjects professing the Jewish religion, with the like\n  exceptions as are provided with respect to His Majesty\u2019s subjects\n  professing the Roman Catholic religion.\u201d\n\n The resolution passed without a division, after a warm debate, in the\n course of which the following Speech was made:\u2014\n\nMR. WARBURTON,\u2014I recollect, and my honourable friend the Member for\nthe University of Oxford[19] will recollect, that when this subject\nwas discussed three years ago, it was remarked, by one whom we both\nloved and whom we both regret, that the strength of the case of the\nJews was a serious inconvenience to their advocate, for that it was\nhardly possible to make a speech for them without wearying the audience\nby repeating truths which were universally admitted. If Sir James\nMackintosh felt this difficulty when the question was first brought\nforward in this House, I may well despair of being able now to offer\nany arguments which have a pretence to novelty.[20]\n\nMy honourable friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, began\nhis speech by declaring that he had no intention of calling in question\nthe principles of religious liberty. He utterly disclaims persecution,\nthat is to say, persecution as defined by himself. It would, in his\nopinion, be persecution to hang a Jew, or to flay him, or to draw\nhis teeth, or to imprison him, or to fine him; for every man who\nconducts himself peaceably has a right to his life and his limbs, to\nhis personal liberty and his property. But it is not persecution,\nsays my honourable friend, to exclude any individual or any class\nfrom office; for nobody has a right to office: in every country\nofficial appointments must be subject to such regulations as the\nsupreme authority may choose to make; nor can any such regulations be\nreasonably complained of by any member of the society as unjust. He\nwho obtains an office obtains it, not as matter of right, but as matter\nof favour. He who does not obtain an office is not wronged; he is only\nin that situation in which the vast majority of every community must\nnecessarily be. There are in the United Kingdom five and twenty million\nChristians without places; and, if they do not complain, why should\nfive and twenty thousand Jews complain of being in the same case? In\nthis way my honourable friend has convinced himself that, as it would\nbe most absurd in him and me to say that we are wronged because we are\nnot Secretaries of State, so it is most absurd in the Jews to say that\nthey are wronged because they are, as a people, excluded from public\nemployment.\n\nNow, surely my honourable friend cannot have considered to what\nconclusions his reasoning leads. Those conclusions are so monstrous\nthat he would, I am certain, shrink from them. Does he really mean that\nit would not be wrong in the legislature to enact that no man should\nbe a judge unless he weighed twelve stone, or that no man should sit\nin Parliament unless he were six feet high? We are about to bring in\na bill for the government of India. Suppose that we were to insert\nin that bill a clause providing that no graduate of the University\nof Oxford should be Governor-General or Governor of any Presidency,\nwould not my honourable friend cry out against such a clause as most\nunjust to the learned body which he represents? And would he think\nhimself sufficiently answered by being told, in his own words, that\nthe appointment to office is a mere matter of favour, and that to\nexclude an individual or a class from office is no injury? Surely, on\nconsideration, he must admit that official appointments ought not to be\nsubject to regulations purely arbitrary, to regulations for which no\nreason can be given but mere caprice, and that those who would exclude\nany class from public employment are bound to show some special reason\nfor the exclusion.\n\nMy honourable friend has appealed to us as Christians. Let me then\nask him how he understands that great commandment which comprises the\nlaw and the prophets. Can we be said to do unto others as we would\nthat they should do unto us if we wantonly inflict on them even the\nsmallest pain? As Christians, surely we are bound to consider, first,\nwhether, by excluding the Jews from all public trust, we give them\npain; and, secondly, whether it be necessary to give them that pain in\norder to avert some greater evil. That by excluding them from public\ntrust we inflict pain on them my honourable friend will not dispute.\nAs a Christian, therefore, he is bound to relieve them from that pain,\nunless he can show, what I am sure he has not yet shown, that it is\nnecessary to the general good that they should continue to suffer.\n\nBut where, he says, are you to stop, if once you admit into the\nHouse of Commons people who deny the authority of the Gospels? Will\nyou let in a Mussulman? Will you let in a Parsee? Will you let in a\nHindoo, who worships a lump of stone with seven heads? I will answer\nmy honourable friend\u2019s question by another. Where does he mean to\nstop? Is he ready to roast unbelievers at slow fires? If not, let him\ntell us why: and I will engage to prove that his reason is just as\ndecisive against the intolerance which he thinks a duty, as against\nthe intolerance which he thinks a crime. Once admit that we are bound\nto inflict pain on a man because he is not of our religion; and where\nare you to stop? Why stop at the point fixed by my honourable friend\nrather than at the point fixed by the honourable Member for Oldham,[21]\nwho would make the Jews incapable of holding land? And why stop at\nthe point fixed by the honourable Member for Oldham rather than at\nthe point which would have been fixed by a Spanish Inquisitor of the\nsixteenth century? When once you enter on a course of persecution, I\ndefy you to find any reason for making a halt till you have reached\nthe extreme point. When my honourable friend tells us that he will\nallow the Jews to possess property to any amount, but that he will\nnot allow them to possess the smallest political power, he holds\ncontradictory language. Property is power. The honourable Member for\nOldham reasons better than my honourable friend. The honourable member\nfor Oldham sees very clearly that it is impossible to deprive a man\nof political power if you suffer him to be the proprietor of half a\ncounty, and therefore very consistently proposes to confiscate the\nlanded estates of the Jews. But even the honourable Member for Oldham\ndoes not go far enough. He has not proposed to confiscate the personal\nproperty of the Jews. Yet it is perfectly certain that any Jew who\nhas a million may easily make himself very important in the state. By\nsuch steps we pass from official power to landed property, and from\nlanded property to personal property, and from property to liberty,\nand from liberty to life. In truth, those persecutors who use the\nrack and the stake have much to say for themselves. They are convinced\nthat their end is good; and it must be admitted that they employ\nmeans which are not unlikely to attain the end. Religious dissent has\nrepeatedly been put down by sanguinary persecution. In that way the\nAlbigenses were put down.[22] In that way Protestantism was suppressed\nin Spain and Italy, so that it has never since reared its head. But\nI defy anybody to produce an instance in which disabilities such as\nwe are now considering have produced any other effect than that of\nmaking the sufferers angry and obstinate. My honourable friend should\neither persecute to some purpose, or not persecute at all. He dislikes\nthe word persecution, I know. He will not admit that the Jews are\npersecuted. And yet I am confident that he would rather be sent to the\nKing\u2019s Bench Prison for three months, or be fined a hundred pounds,\nthan be subject to the disabilities under which the Jews lie. How can\nhe then say that to impose such disabilities is not persecution, and\nthat to fine and imprison is persecution? All his reasoning consists\nin drawing arbitrary lines. What he does not wish to inflict he calls\npersecution. What he does wish to inflict he will not call persecution.\nWhat he takes from the Jews he calls political power. What he is too\ngood-natured to take from the Jews he will not call political power.\nThe Jew must not sit in Parliament; but he may be the proprietor of all\nthe ten-pound houses in a borough.[23] He may have more fifty-pound\ntenants than any peer in the kingdom. He may give the voters treats to\nplease their palates, and hire bands of gipsies to break their heads,\nas if he were a Christian and a Marquess. All the rest of the system is\nof a piece. The Jew may be a juryman, but not a judge. He may decide\nissues of fact, but not issues of law. He may give a hundred thousand\npounds damages; but he may not in the most trivial case grant a new\ntrial. He may rule the money-market: he may influence the exchanges: he\nmay be summoned to congresses of Emperors and Kings. Great potentates,\ninstead of negotiating a loan with him by tying him in a chair and\npulling out his grinders, may treat with him as with a great potentate,\nand may postpone the declaring of war or the signing of a treaty till\nthey have conferred with him. All this is as it should be: but he must\nnot be a Privy Councillor. He must not be called Right Honourable, for\nthat is political power. And who is it that we are trying to cheat\nin this way? Even Omniscience. Yes, Sir; we have been gravely told\nthat the Jews are under the divine displeasure, and that if we give\nthem political power, God will visit us in judgment. Do we then think\nthat God cannot distinguish between substance and form? Does not He\nknow that, while we withhold from the Jews the semblance and name of\npolitical power, we suffer them to possess the substance? The plain\ntruth is that my honourable friend is drawn in one direction by his\nopinions, and in a directly opposite direction by his excellent heart.\nHe halts between two opinions. He tries to make a compromise between\nprinciples which admit of no compromise. He goes a certain way in\nintolerance. Then he stops, without being able to give a reason for\nstopping. But I know the reason. It is his humanity. Those who formerly\ndragged the Jew at a horse\u2019s tail, and singed his beard with blazing\nfurze-bushes, were much worse men than my honourable friend; but they\nwere more consistent than he.\n\nIt has been said that it would be monstrous to see a Jew judge try a\nman for blasphemy.[24] In my opinion it is monstrous to see any judge\ntry a man for blasphemy under the present law. But, if the law on\nthat subject were in a sound state, I do not see why a conscientious\nJew might not try a blasphemer. Every man, I think, ought to be at\nliberty to discuss the evidences of religion; but no man ought to be\nat liberty to force on the unwilling ears and eyes of others sounds\nand sights which must cause annoyance and irritation. The distinction\nis clear. I think it wrong to punish a man for selling Paine\u2019s \u201cAge of\nReason\u201d in a back-shop to those who choose to buy, or for delivering\na Deistical lecture in a private room to those who choose to listen.\nBut if a man exhibits at a window in the Strand a hideous caricature\nof that which is an object of awe and adoration to nine hundred and\nninety-nine out of every thousand of the people who pass up and down\nthat great thoroughfare; if a man in a place of public resort applies\nopprobrious epithets to names held in reverence by all Christians;\nsuch a man ought, in my opinion, to be severely punished, not for\ndiffering from us in opinion, but for committing a nuisance which gives\nus pain and disgust. He is no more entitled to outrage our feelings by\nobtruding his impiety on us, and to say that he is exercising his right\nof discussion, than to establish a yard for butchering horses close to\nour houses, and to say that he is exercising his right of property, or\nto run naked up and down the public streets, and to say that he is\nexercising his right of locomotion. He has a right of discussion, no\ndoubt, as he has a right of property and a right of locomotion. But he\nmust use all his rights so as not to infringe the rights of others.\n\nThese, Sir, are the principles on which I would frame the law of\nblasphemy; and if the law were so framed, I am at a loss to understand\nwhy a Jew might not enforce it as well as a Christian. I am not a Roman\nCatholic; but if I were a judge at Malta, I should have no scruple\nabout punishing a bigoted Protestant who should burn the Pope in effigy\nbefore the eyes of thousands of Roman Catholics. I am not a Mussulman;\nbut if I were a judge in India, I should have no scruple about\npunishing a Christian who should pollute a mosque. Why, then, should I\ndoubt that a Jew, raised by his ability, learning, and integrity to the\njudicial bench, would deal properly with any person who, in a Christian\ncountry, should insult the Christian religion?\n\nBut, says my honourable friend, it has been prophesied that the Jews\nare to be wanderers on the face of the earth, and that they are not\nto mix on terms of equality with the people of the countries in which\nthey sojourn. Now, Sir, I am confident that I can demonstrate that\nthis is not the sense of any prophecy which is part of Holy Writ. For\nit is an undoubted fact that, in the United States of America, Jewish\ncitizens do possess all the privileges possessed by Christian citizens.\nTherefore, if the prophecies mean that the Jews never shall, during\ntheir wanderings, be admitted by other nations to equal participation\nof political rights, the prophecies are false. But the prophecies are\ncertainly not false. Therefore their meaning cannot be that which is\nattributed to them by my honourable friend.\n\nAnother objection which has been made to the motion is that the Jews\nlook forward to the coming of a great deliverer, to their return to\nPalestine, to the rebuilding of their Temple, to the revival of their\nancient worship, and that therefore they will always consider England,\nnot their country, but merely as their place of exile. But, surely,\nSir, it would be the grossest ignorance of human nature to imagine that\nthe anticipation of an event which is to happen at some time altogether\nindefinite, of an event which has been vainly expected during many\ncenturies, of an event which even those who confidently expect that it\nwill happen do not confidently expect that they or their children or\ntheir grandchildren will see, can ever occupy the minds of men to such\na degree as to make them regardless of what is near and present and\ncertain. Indeed Christians, as well as Jews, believe that the existing\norder of things will come to an end. Many Christians believe that Jesus\nwill visibly reign on earth during a thousand years. Expositors of\nprophecy have gone so far as to fix the year when the Millennial period\nis to commence. The prevailing opinion is, I think, in favour of the\nyear 1866; but, according to some commentators, the time is close at\nhand. Are we to exclude all millenarians from Parliament and office, on\nthe ground that they are impatiently looking forward to the miraculous\nmonarchy which is to supersede the present dynasty and the present\nconstitution of England, and that therefore they cannot be heartily\nloyal to King William?\n\nIn one important point, Sir, my honourable friend, the Member for the\nUniversity of Oxford, must acknowledge that the Jewish religion is\nof all erroneous religions the least mischievous. There is not the\nslightest chance that the Jewish religion will spread. The Jew does\nnot wish to make proselytes. He may be said to reject them.[25] He\nthinks it almost culpable in one who does not belong to his race to\npresume to belong to his religion. It is therefore not strange that a\nconversion from Christianity to Judaism should be a rarer occurrence\nthan a total eclipse of the sun. There was one distinguished convert in\nthe last century, Lord George Gordon; and the history of his conversion\ndeserves to be remembered.[26] For if ever there was a proselyte of\nwhom a proselytising sect would have been proud, it was Lord George;\nnot only because he was a man of high birth and rank; not only because\nhe had been a member of the legislature; but also because he had been\ndistinguished by the intolerance, nay, the ferocity, of his zeal for\nhis own form of Christianity. But was he allured into the synagogue?\nWas he even welcomed to it? No, Sir; he was coldly and reluctantly\npermitted to share the reproach and suffering of the chosen people;\nbut he was sternly shut out from their privileges. He underwent the\npainful rite which their law enjoins. But when, on his death-bed, he\nbegged hard to be buried among them according to their ceremonial, he\nwas told that his request could not be granted. I understand that cry\nof \u201cHear.\u201d It reminds me that one of the arguments against this motion\nis that the Jews are an unsocial people, that they draw close to each\nother, and stand aloof from strangers. Really, Sir, it is amusing to\ncompare the manner in which the question of Catholic emancipation\nwas argued formerly by some gentlemen with the manner in which the\nquestion of Jew emancipation is argued by the same gentlemen now.\nWhen the question was about Catholic emancipation, the cry was, \u201cSee\nhow restless, how versatile, how encroaching, how insinuating, is the\nspirit of the Church of Rome. See how her priests compass earth and sea\nto make one proselyte, how indefatigably they toil, how attentively\nthey study the weak and strong parts of every character, how skilfully\nthey employ literature, arts, sciences, as engines for the propagation\nof their faith. You find them in every region and under every\ndisguise, collating manuscripts in the Bodleian, fixing telescopes\nin the observatory of Pekin, teaching the use of the plough and the\nspinning wheel to the savages of Paraguay. Will you give power to the\nmembers of a Church so busy, so aggressive, so insatiable?\u201d Well, now\nthe question is about people who never try to seduce any stranger to\njoin them, and who do not wish anybody to be of their faith who is\nnot also of their blood. And now you exclaim, \u201cWill you give power to\nthe members of a sect which remains sullenly apart from other sects,\nwhich does not invite, nay, which hardly even admits neophytes?\u201d The\ntruth is, that bigotry will never want a pretence. Whatever the sect\nbe which it is proposed to tolerate, the peculiarities of that sect\nwill, for the time, be pronounced by intolerant men to be the most\nodious and dangerous that can be conceived. As to the Jews, that they\nare unsocial as respects religion is true; and so much the better:\nfor, surely, as Christians, we cannot wish that they should bestir\nthemselves to pervert us from our own faith. But that the Jews would\nbe unsocial members of the civil community, if the civil community did\nits duty by them, has never been proved. My right honourable friend who\nmade the motion which we are discussing has produced a great body of\nevidence to show that they have been grossly misrepresented;[27] and\nthat evidence has not been refuted by my honourable friend the Member\nfor the University of Oxford. But what if it were true that the Jews\nare unsocial? What if it were true that they do not regard England\nas their country? Would not the treatment which they have undergone\nexplain and excuse their antipathy to the society in which they live?\nHas not similar antipathy often been felt by persecuted Christians to\nthe society which persecuted them? While the bloody code of Elizabeth\nwas enforced against the English Roman Catholics, what was the\npatriotism of Roman Catholics? Oliver Cromwell said that in his time\nthey were Espaniolised. At a later period it might have been said that\nthey were Gallicised. It was the same with the Calvinists. What more\ndeadly enemies had France in the days of Louis the Fourteenth than the\npersecuted Huguenots? But would any rational man infer from these facts\nthat either the Roman Catholic as such, or the Calvinist as such, is\nincapable of loving the land of his birth? If England were now invaded\nby Roman Catholics, how many English Roman Catholics would go over to\nthe invader? If France were now attacked by a Protestant enemy, how\nmany French Protestants would lend him help? Why not try what effect\nwould be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy which has made\nthe English Roman Catholic a good Englishman and the French Calvinist a\ngood Frenchman?[28]\n\nAnother charge has been brought against the Jews, not by my honourable\nfriend the Member for the University of Oxford\u2014he has too much learning\nand too much good feeling to make such a charge\u2014but by the honourable\nMember for Oldham, who has, I am sorry to see, quitted his place. The\nhonourable Member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a\nmean race, a sordid race, a money-getting race; that they are averse\nto all honourable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that\nthey have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit\nfor which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and\namiable sentiments. Such, Sir, has in every age been the reasoning of\nbigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the\nvices which persecution has engendered. England has been to the Jews\nless than half a country; and we revile them because they do not feel\nfor England more than a half patriotism. We treat them as slaves,\nand wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive them to\nmean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honourable\nprofessions. We long forbade them to possess land; and we complain\nthat they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from\nall the paths of ambition; and then we despise them for taking refuge\nin avarice. During many ages we have, in all our dealings with them,\nabused our immense superiority of force; and then we are disgusted\nbecause they have recourse to that cunning which is the natural and\nuniversal defence of the weak against the violence of the strong. But\nwere they always a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoarding\nrace? Nobody knows better than my honourable friend the Member for the\nUniversity of Oxford that there is nothing in their national character\nwhich unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. He knows that,\nin the infancy of civilisation, when our island was as savage as New\nGuinea, when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when\nscarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome,\nthis contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their\nsplendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of\nsacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural\nphilosophers, their historians and their poets. What nation ever\ncontended more manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence\nand religion? What nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal\nproofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if, in the\ncourse of many centuries, the oppressed descendants of warriors and\nsages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, while\nexcluded from the blessings of law, and bowed down under the yoke of\nslavery, they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and of\nslaves, shall we consider this as matter of reproach to them? Shall we\nnot rather consider it as matter of shame and remorse to ourselves?\nLet us do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House of\nCommons. Let us open to them every career in which ability and energy\ncan be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume to say\nthat there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism\namong the descendants of the Maccabees.\n\nSir, in supporting the motion of my honourable friend, I am, I firmly\nbelieve, supporting the honour and the interests of the Christian\nreligion. I should think that I insulted that religion if I said that\nit cannot stand unaided by intolerant laws. Without such laws it was\nestablished, and without such laws it may be maintained. It triumphed\nover the superstitions of the most refined and of the most savage\nnations, over the graceful mythology of Greece and the bloody idolatry\nof the Northern forests. It prevailed over the power and policy of\nthe Roman empire. It tamed the barbarians by whom that empire was\noverthrown. But all these victories were gained not by the help of\nintolerance, but in spite of the opposition of intolerance. The whole\nhistory of Christianity proves that she has little indeed to fear from\npersecution as a foe, but much to fear from persecution as an ally. May\nshe long continue to bless our country with her benignant influence,\nstrong in her sublime philosophy, strong in her spotless morality,\nstrong in those internal and external evidences to which the most\npowerful and comprehensive of human intellects have yielded assent, the\nlast solace of those who have outlived every earthly hope, the last\nrestraint of those who are raised above every earthly fear! But let\nnot us, mistaking her character and her interests, fight the battle of\ntruth with the weapons of error, and endeavour to support by oppression\nthat religion which first taught the human race the great lesson of\nuniversal charity.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] The full title of the publication which forms the peg for\nMacaulay\u2019s essay is _Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations\naffecting natural born Subjects of His Majesty professing the Jewish\nReligion, commonly called Jews_. It was printed in 1829 by G. Taylor,\nPrinter, 7 Little James Street. In the article in the _Westminster\nReview_, April 1829, occasioned by this same pamphlet, the address of\nthe printer, George Taylor, is given as _Lamb\u2019s Conduit Passage, Red\nLion Square_. The _Statement_ must have appeared in two forms. Macaulay\ndescribes it as octavo, but the pages of the copy which Mr. Israel\nSolomons possesses measure 12\u00bd by 7\u00be inches. The margins in this copy\nhave been cut for binding. It was meant to _fold_ in four, as is shown\nby the manner in which the title is repeated on the fourth side. The\ntitle as there printed is _exactly that cited by Macaulay_. Probably\nthe document was originally a Petition to the House of Commons.\n\nThe _Statement_ is anonymous, but bears the clear hallmark of Francis\nHenry Goldsmid\u2019s style. _Cf._ D. W. Marks and A. L\u00f6wy, _Memoir of Sir\nFrancis Henry Goldsmid_, 1879, p. 23 [second edition, 1882, p. 27].\nThe author opens with the general assertion that no man ought to be\ndeprived of civil or political right because of his religious opinions,\n\u201cunless it can be shewn that, from the removal of their disabilities,\ninjury is likely to result to the community at large.\u201d The _Statement_\ngoes on to argue that such removal would not injure the religion or\nthreaten the government of England, for, on the one hand, Jews do not\nproselytise, and, on the other, they are noted for their \u201cproverbial\nloyalty.\u201d The experience of the happy effect of emancipation in\nFrance, America, and the Netherlands is next appealed to. This leads\nup to a short survey of the history of the Jews in England before the\nexpulsion in 1290, and after the return in the time of Cromwell, and an\nable argument as to their legal status\u2014including their right to hold\nland\u2014follows. The whole concludes with an appeal for the \u201cOmission in\nthe Oath of Abjuration and Dissenters\u2019 Declaration, when respectively\ntaken, or made and subscribed, by persons professing the Jewish\nreligion, of words obviously inconsistent with such profession.\u201d It is\naltogether a moderate and able presentation of the case for the Jews,\nand fairly deserved the prominence given to it by Macaulay.\n\n[2] Sir Robert Grant (1779-1838) was born in Bengal, and, after a\ndistinguished career at Cambridge, entered Parliament in 1818. In 1830\nhis first Bill was rejected; but a better fate rewarded his effort of\n1833. Soon afterwards he went to India as Governor of Bombay. Grant\nwas the author of some famous sacred poems, one of the best and most\npopular of which was his translation of Psalm civ., \u201cO Worship the\nKing.\u201d\n\n[3] There had been a change of Government. Parliament was dissolved\non July 24, 1830, and in the new parliament the Duke of Wellington\u2019s\nministry fell, to be succeeded by the Grey administration.\n\n[4] See comments on this passage in the Introduction.\n\n[5] Professor F. C. Montague remarks that \u201cprobably Perceval, Goulburn,\nand Vansittart are more particularly meant.\u201d These were Chancellors\nbetween 1810 and 1830.\n\n[6] Gatton (Surrey) and Old Sarum (Wilts) were \u201cpocket boroughs without\ninhabitants,\u201d and, like the corrupt borough of Penryn (Cornwall), were\ndisfranchised by the Reform Act. Macaulay was far from implying that\nJews actually did own any corrupt boroughs. His argument is based on\nthe fact that nothing in the then state of the law could prevent such\nownership.\n\n[7] \u201cHenry Pelham Francis Pelham Clinton, fourth Duke of Newcastle,\n1785-1851, a high Tory, ejected some of his tenants at Newark for\nhaving voted on the Whig side in the general election of 1830\u201d\n(Professor Montague).\n\n[8] This refers to Daniel O\u2019Connell\u2014who, it may be remembered, was a\nconsistent friend of the Jewish claims.\n\n[9] William Laud (1573-1645), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633,\nwas one of the principal advisers of Charles I. in his repression of\nthe Puritans and the enforcement of episcopacy upon Scotland. He was\nattainted in January 1645, and was executed on Tower Hill.\n\n[10] In the _Edinburgh Review_ these sentences follow: \u201cIt is to put\nthe effect before the cause. It is to vindicate oppression by pointing\nto the depravation which oppression has caused.\u201d Macaulay felt,\nno doubt, that the word \u201cdepravation\u201d was unjust, and conveyed an\nunintended stigma.\n\n[11] Gaspard de Coligni was a Huguenot victim of the massacre of St.\nBartholomew, in 1572.\n\nSir Henry Vane was a leader in the Opposition against Charles I., and\nwas executed in 1662.\n\n[12] The answer given by the lay barons at the Parliament of Merton\nin 1236 to the proposal of the prelates to make the English law of\nlegitimacy correspond with that of other countries. Sir James H.\nRamsay, _The Dawn of the Constitution_, pp. 77, 78, following the text\nof the Statutes of the Realm, reads _mutare_ in the active, instead of\n_mutari_ in the passive.\n\n[13] The argument is lengthily and moderately stated in a _Times_\nleader for May 3, 1830.\n\n[14] This passage confirms what is said in the Introduction as to\nMacaulay\u2019s personal familiarity with synagogue usages.\n\n[15] Matthew xxvi. 24.\n\n[16] Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 66, 32.\n\n[17] Luke x. 29. \u201cLove thy neighbour as thyself\u201d is from Leviticus xix.\n18.\n\n[18] In its issue of April 3, 1830, the newspaper _John Bull_ (which\nbore on its title-page the legend, \u201cFor God, the King, and the People\u201d)\npublished a violent attack on Mr. Grant\u2019s Bill. The article took the\nform of a sarcastic plea for the emancipation of the gipsies. There\nwas a further attack on April 25, and on May 23 the same paper, while\nrejoicing at the rejection of Mr. Grant\u2019s \u201cromantic and un-Christian\nBill,\u201d expressed its dissatisfaction with the speeches of the opponents\nof Jewish emancipation. They were altogether too conciliatory and\ntolerant to please _John Bull_.\n\n[19] Sir Robert Inglis (1786-1855) entered Parliament in 1824.\nHe opposed the various Catholic Relief Bills and the repeal of\nthe Test and Corporation Acts. Sir Robert Peel had supported the\nCatholic claims, and Inglis thereupon successfully opposed him\n(1829) as candidate for the University of Oxford. Inglis continued\nto represent the University until his withdrawal from parliamentary\nlife. He persistently opposed the Jewish emancipation. \u201cInglis was an\nold-fashioned Tory, a strong Churchman, with many prejudices and no\ngreat ability\u201d (_Dictionary of National Biography_).\n\n[20] Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832) supported Grant\u2019s first\nresolution in 1830; in the interim he had died. Mackintosh, who\nentered the House in 1813, enjoyed much reputation as a philosopher.\n\n[21] The Member for Oldham was the noted William Cobbett (1762-1835),\nwho, after an extraordinary career in England and America, entered the\nfirst Reformed Parliament. Cobbett was very violent in his opposition\nto Jewish liberties. See note 24.\n\n[22] The Albigenses, who took their name from one of their strongholds,\nthe town of Albi on the Tarn, were an anti-sacerdotal sect in the South\nof France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, infected with\nManich\u00e6an heresy. They suffered the most horrible cruelties in the\ncrusade carried on against them from 1209 to 1218 under the command of\nSimon de Montfort, the father of the Simon de Montfort so well known in\nEnglish history. See T. F. Tout, \u201cThe Empire and the Papacy,\u201d pp. 216,\n401.\n\n[23] See note 6.\n\n[24] On March 1, 1833, Mr. Hill presented a petition by Unitarians\nin favour of the \u201cremoval of all Religious Disqualifications still\nexisting, and especially for the removal of the Disabilities affecting\nthe Jews.\u201d It was on this occasion that Cobbett raised the objection to\nwhich Macaulay\u2019s argument is the reply. The reference to Paine\u2019s \u201cAge\nof Reason\u201d is also a covert hit at Cobbett, who reprinted Paine\u2019s work.\n\n[25] Macaulay here overstates the case. The synagogue has at various\ntimes been reluctant to receive and unwilling to seek proselytes. But\nit does not reject them.\n\n[26] Lord George Gordon (1751-1793), the third son of Cosmo George,\nDuke of Gordon, was charged with high treason for having in 1780 headed\nterrible riots in London directed against the removal of certain Roman\nCatholic disabilities. He was acquitted on the ground that he had no\ntreasonable intentions. He afterwards embraced the Jewish faith, and\nwas received into the covenant of Abraham in Birmingham, but without\nthe sanction of the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities in London. A\nvivid description of the \u201cNo Popery\u201d riots of 1780 will be found in\nDickens\u2019 \u201cBarnaby Rudge,\u201d which also contains a reference to Lord\nGeorge\u2019s change of religion.\n\n[27] In the report of Grant\u2019s speech in the _Times_ of April 18, 1833,\noccurs this passage:\u2014\n\n\u201cNow with respect to the supposed anti-social principles of the Jews,\nthe most sacred of their books had told them to \u2018Seek the peace of\nthe city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and\npray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have\npeace\u2019 [Jeremiah xxix. 7]. This principle was fully recognised by the\nJews under Napoleon, who asked whether they held themselves bound, as\ncitizens of the State in which they resided, by the laws and customs\nof that State? The Sanhedrin replied that every Jew, regarded as a\ncitizen by the State, must obey the laws of the country which protected\nthem and conform to the regulations of the civil code; in short, that\nIsraelites were bound to consider such countries as their own, and\nserve and defend them to the utmost. In a catechism of the elements of\nthe Jewish faith, intended for the use of Hebrew youths, it was stated\nthat the Messiah not having come, the king under whose protection they\nlived must be considered as a King of Israel, and that the country in\nwhich they enjoyed such protection was to be looked upon in the same\nlight as the land of their forefathers.\u201d\n\nGrant followed this up by a masterly survey of the relations of Jews\nto various States in the past and present, and cited evidence of\nthe patriotism and good citizenship of Jews wherever they had been\npermitted an opportunity of displaying those qualities.\n\n[28] In Hansard\u2019s report (col. 236) Macaulay finished the paragraph\nwith the words: \u201cWhy not try the same experiment which has been tried\nin France and Prussia, and which was now trying in the United States of\nAmerica?\u201d In the same debate (col. 342), in the report of Mr. Joseph\nHume\u2019s speech, occurs the passage: \u201cHe had a letter in his hand, though\nhe would not trouble the House by reading it, from Mr. Quincy Adams,\nthe late President of the United States, stating that there were\nno better citizens than the Jews, and expressing the hope that ere\nlong the whole of Europe would see the justice and wisdom of freely\nconceding to them the fullest political privileges.\u201d\n\n\n_FOREIGN EDITIONS_\n\n[The numbers in square brackets at the end of the entries indicate the\npress-marks of the copies in the British Museum.]\n\n\n(_a_) MACAULAY\u2019S ESSAY\n\n(1) [French]. _Essais politiques et philosophiques par Lord Macaulay,\nTraduits par M. Guillaume Guizot._ Paris, 1862. Pp. 380-398. [12273 k\n3.]\n\n(2) [Dutch]. _Historische en letterkundige Schetsen door Lord Macaulay.\nIn het Hollandsch overgebragt door Dr. A. Pierson._ Haarlem, 1865. I.\n105-120. [12272 aa 23.]\n\n(3) [Italian]. _Saggi biografici e critici di Tommaso Babington\nMacaulay. Versione dall\u2019 Inglese con note di Cesare Rovighi._ Torino,\n1859-1866. V. 288-302. [12273 aa 3.]\n\n(4) [English text, with Introduction and Notes in German]. _Civil\nDisabilities of the Jews. Eine 1831 ver\u00f6ffentlichte Abhandlung von\nThomas Babington Macaulay. Herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen versehen\nvon Dr. F. Fischer._ Berlin, 1882. [4033 f 32 (10).]\n\n(5) [Roumanian]. The son of Prince John Ghica (for some time Roumanian\nminister at the Court of St. James\u2019), who was educated in England,\ntranslated Macaulay\u2019s Essay on the \u201cCivil Disabilities of the Jews\u201d\ninto Roumanian. The translation appeared as a small pamphlet in\nBucharest. Political exigencies and the rise of anti-Jewish feeling in\nRoumania demanded the suppression of the translation, to avoid awkward\nquestions and to remove a possible bar to the young man\u2019s career.\nThe pamphlet has in consequence almost completely disappeared. A few\ncopies, however, have been saved, and one of them is in the library of\nthe Rev. Dr. M. Gaster.\n\n\n(_b_) MACAULAY\u2019S SPEECH\n\n(1) A German translation of Macaulay\u2019s Speech on \u201cJewish Disabilities\u201d\nwas published in 1881, in reply to the anti-Semitic campaign of St\u00f6cker\nand Henrici. The full title is Macaulay\u2019s _Rede f\u00fcr die Emancipation\nder Juden gehalten im Englischen Unterhaus, am 17 April 1833_.\n_\u00dcbersetzt von A. E._ Frankfurt a. Main, 1881. [4033 f 31 (12).]\n\n(2) A Spanish translation will be found on pp. 109-122 of _Discursos\nParlamentarios de Lord Macaulay, Traducidos del Ingl\u00e9s por Daniel\nL\u00f3pez_. Madrid, 1885. [8139 aa 66.]\n\n  Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n  Edinburgh & London","title":"Essay and speech on Jewish disabilities","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14376}