Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
[Illustration]
_ESSAY AND SPEECH
ON
JEWISH DISABILITIES_
BY
LORD MACAULAY
EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY
ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A.
AND THE
REV. S. LEVY, M.A.
_Second Edition_
Printed for the
_Jewish Historical Society of England
By_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
EDINBURGH
1910
_NOTE_
_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._
CONTENTS
PAGE
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 7
MACAULAY’S ESSAY 19
MACAULAY’S SPEECH 42
EDITORS’ NOTES 63
ILLUSTRATIONS
PORTRAIT OF MACAULAY _Frontispiece_
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).
MACAULAY’S AUTOGRAPH _To face page 62_
A facsimile reproduction of Macaulay’s signature
at the end of a letter to Macvey Napier,
Editor of the _Edinburgh Review_, dated 10th Feb.
1839. The original is in the British Museum
(Add. MS. 34,620 f. 83 b).
INTRODUCTION
The 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.
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 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.”
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, 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” (_Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society
of England_, 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.
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, he wrote to Macvey Napier, the
editor of the _Edinburgh Review_: “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” (_Selection from the Correspondence of
the late Macvey Napier_, 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” (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 _Edinburgh Review_ 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 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 _Quarterly Review_, futilely attempted
to set up a reasonable case against the Jewish claim, the whole of the
argument was directed towards rebutting Macaulay’s essay.
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:—
“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.
_He had seen a great deal of the worship of the Jews_, and he had
heard a great deal on the subject from others, and _from all that he
had seen_ 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 not only not insulting to Christians, but in which
Christians might not, without the least difficulty, join.”
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.
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 _Edinburgh Review_ 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 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 _as such_ 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 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 _the Jews_. He describes the
success of the arguments in the essay as complete, and their justice as
generally admitted.
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 _Church and State_ 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
essay which equals in dignity and strength and eloquence the following
sentences in the speech:—
“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 countrymen of Isaiah, no
heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees” (_Infra_, pp. 60, 61).
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.
Civil Disabilities of the Jews
FROM
“THE EDINBURGH REVIEW,” _Jan. 1831_
_Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations affecting Jews in
England_
8vo. London: 1829[1]
The 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.
The constitution, it is said, is essentially Christian; and therefore
to admit Jews to 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.
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.
The strange argument which we are 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.[4]
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
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.
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 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.[5]
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. 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.[6] 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[7] 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, free to say this and to say
that, would be a profanation sufficient to bring ruin on the country.
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.
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, when a Catholic Association
bearded the Parliament, when a Catholic agitator exercised infinitely
more authority than the Lord Lieutenant.[8]
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.
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.
The argument has in it something plausible; but a close examination
shows it to be quite unsound. Even if the alleged facts are 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 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.[9] 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 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.[10]
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 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.[11]
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.
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 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. 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, _Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari_.”[12]
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 _Times_ newspaper,[13] 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, 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.
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
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.
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 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?
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.[14] 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
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 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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.”[15] 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 children of a race whose “sons and daughters are to be
given unto another people”?[16]
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.[17] Last year, we remember, it was represented by a pious writer
in the _John Bull_ newspaper,[18] 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.
A SPEECH
DELIVERED IN A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_On the 17th of April 1833._
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:—
“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.”
The resolution passed without a division, after a warm debate, in the
course of which the following Speech was made:—
MR. WARBURTON,—I recollect, and my honourable friend the Member for
the University of Oxford[19] will recollect, that when this subject
was discussed three years ago, it was remarked, by one whom we both
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.[20]
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 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.
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 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.