Chapter II: Part 2

But where, he says, are you to stop, if once you admit into the House of Commons people who deny the authority of the Gospels? Will you let in a Mussulman? Will you let in a Parsee? Will you let in a Hindoo, who worships a lump of stone with seven heads? I will answer my honourable friend’s question by another. Where does he mean to stop? Is he ready to roast unbelievers at slow fires? If not, let him tell us why: and I will engage to prove that his reason is just as decisive against the intolerance which he thinks a duty, as against the intolerance which he thinks a crime. Once admit that we are bound to inflict pain on a man because he is not of our religion; and where are you to stop? Why stop at the point fixed by my honourable friend rather than at the point fixed by the honourable Member for Oldham,[21] who would make the Jews incapable of holding land? And why stop at the point fixed by the honourable Member for Oldham rather than at the point which would have been fixed by a Spanish Inquisitor of the sixteenth century? When once you enter on a course of persecution, I defy you to find any reason for making a halt till you have reached the extreme point. When my honourable friend tells us that he will allow the Jews to possess property to any amount, but that he will not allow them to possess the smallest political power, he holds contradictory language. Property is power. The honourable Member for Oldham reasons better than my honourable friend. The honourable member for Oldham sees very clearly that it is impossible to deprive a man of political power if you suffer him to be the proprietor of half a county, and therefore very consistently proposes to confiscate the landed estates of the Jews. But even the honourable Member for Oldham does not go far enough. He has not proposed to confiscate the personal property of the Jews. Yet it is perfectly certain that any Jew who has a million may easily make himself very important in the state. By such steps we pass from official power to landed property, and from landed property to personal property, and from property to liberty, and from liberty to life. In truth, those persecutors who use the rack and the stake have much to say for themselves. They are convinced that their end is good; and it must be admitted that they employ means which are not unlikely to attain the end. Religious dissent has repeatedly been put down by sanguinary persecution. In that way the Albigenses were put down.[22] In that way Protestantism was suppressed in Spain and Italy, so that it has never since reared its head. But I defy anybody to produce an instance in which disabilities such as we are now considering have produced any other effect than that of making the sufferers angry and obstinate. My honourable friend should either persecute to some purpose, or not persecute at all. He dislikes the word persecution, I know. He will not admit that the Jews are persecuted. And yet I am confident that he would rather be sent to the King’s Bench Prison for three months, or be fined a hundred pounds, than be subject to the disabilities under which the Jews lie. How can he then say that to impose such disabilities is not persecution, and that to fine and imprison is persecution? All his reasoning consists in drawing arbitrary lines. What he does not wish to inflict he calls persecution. What he does wish to inflict he will not call persecution. What he takes from the Jews he calls political power. What he is too good-natured to take from the Jews he will not call political power. The Jew must not sit in Parliament; but he may be the proprietor of all the ten-pound houses in a borough.[23] He may have more fifty-pound tenants than any peer in the kingdom. He may give the voters treats to please their palates, and hire bands of gipsies to break their heads, as if he were a Christian and a Marquess. All the rest of the system is of a piece. The Jew may be a juryman, but not a judge. He may decide issues of fact, but not issues of law. He may give a hundred thousand pounds damages; but he may not in the most trivial case grant a new trial. He may rule the money-market: he may influence the exchanges: he may be summoned to congresses of Emperors and Kings. Great potentates, instead of negotiating a loan with him by tying him in a chair and pulling out his grinders, may treat with him as with a great potentate, and may postpone the declaring of war or the signing of a treaty till they have conferred with him. All this is as it should be: but he must not be a Privy Councillor. He must not be called Right Honourable, for that is political power. And who is it that we are trying to cheat in this way? Even Omniscience. Yes, Sir; we have been gravely told that the Jews are under the divine displeasure, and that if we give them political power, God will visit us in judgment. Do we then think that God cannot distinguish between substance and form? Does not He know that, while we withhold from the Jews the semblance and name of political power, we suffer them to possess the substance? The plain truth is that my honourable friend is drawn in one direction by his opinions, and in a directly opposite direction by his excellent heart. He halts between two opinions. He tries to make a compromise between principles which admit of no compromise. He goes a certain way in intolerance. Then he stops, without being able to give a reason for stopping. But I know the reason. It is his humanity. Those who formerly dragged the Jew at a horse’s tail, and singed his beard with blazing furze-bushes, were much worse men than my honourable friend; but they were more consistent than he.

It has been said that it would be monstrous to see a Jew judge try a man for blasphemy.[24] In my opinion it is monstrous to see any judge try a man for blasphemy under the present law. But, if the law on that subject were in a sound state, I do not see why a conscientious Jew might not try a blasphemer. Every man, I think, ought to be at liberty to discuss the evidences of religion; but no man ought to be at liberty to force on the unwilling ears and eyes of others sounds and sights which must cause annoyance and irritation. The distinction is clear. I think it wrong to punish a man for selling Paine’s “Age of Reason” in a back-shop to those who choose to buy, or for delivering a Deistical lecture in a private room to those who choose to listen. But if a man exhibits at a window in the Strand a hideous caricature of that which is an object of awe and adoration to nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the people who pass up and down that great thoroughfare; if a man in a place of public resort applies opprobrious epithets to names held in reverence by all Christians; such a man ought, in my opinion, to be severely punished, not for differing from us in opinion, but for committing a nuisance which gives us pain and disgust. He is no more entitled to outrage our feelings by obtruding his impiety on us, and to say that he is exercising his right of discussion, than to establish a yard for butchering horses close to our houses, and to say that he is exercising his right of property, or to run naked up and down the public streets, and to say that he is exercising his right of locomotion. He has a right of discussion, no doubt, as he has a right of property and a right of locomotion. But he must use all his rights so as not to infringe the rights of others.

These, Sir, are the principles on which I would frame the law of blasphemy; and if the law were so framed, I am at a loss to understand why a Jew might not enforce it as well as a Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic; but if I were a judge at Malta, I should have no scruple about punishing a bigoted Protestant who should burn the Pope in effigy before the eyes of thousands of Roman Catholics. I am not a Mussulman; but if I were a judge in India, I should have no scruple about punishing a Christian who should pollute a mosque. Why, then, should I doubt that a Jew, raised by his ability, learning, and integrity to the judicial bench, would deal properly with any person who, in a Christian country, should insult the Christian religion?

But, says my honourable friend, it has been prophesied that the Jews are to be wanderers on the face of the earth, and that they are not to mix on terms of equality with the people of the countries in which they sojourn. Now, Sir, I am confident that I can demonstrate that this is not the sense of any prophecy which is part of Holy Writ. For it is an undoubted fact that, in the United States of America, Jewish citizens do possess all the privileges possessed by Christian citizens. Therefore, if the prophecies mean that the Jews never shall, during their wanderings, be admitted by other nations to equal participation of political rights, the prophecies are false. But the prophecies are certainly not false. Therefore their meaning cannot be that which is attributed to them by my honourable friend.

Another objection which has been made to the motion is that the Jews look forward to the coming of a great deliverer, to their return to Palestine, to the rebuilding of their Temple, to the revival of their ancient worship, and that therefore they will always consider England, not their country, but merely as their place of exile. But, surely, Sir, it would be the grossest ignorance of human nature to imagine that the anticipation of an event which is to happen at some time altogether indefinite, of an event which has been vainly expected during many centuries, of an event which even those who confidently expect that it will happen do not confidently expect that they or their children or their grandchildren will see, can ever occupy the minds of men to such a degree as to make them regardless of what is near and present and certain. Indeed Christians, as well as Jews, believe that the existing order of things will come to an end. Many Christians believe that Jesus will visibly reign on earth during a thousand years. Expositors of prophecy have gone so far as to fix the year when the Millennial period is to commence. The prevailing opinion is, I think, in favour of the year 1866; but, according to some commentators, the time is close at hand. Are we to exclude all millenarians from Parliament and office, on the ground that they are impatiently looking forward to the miraculous monarchy which is to supersede the present dynasty and the present constitution of England, and that therefore they cannot be heartily loyal to King William?

In one important point, Sir, my honourable friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, must acknowledge that the Jewish religion is of all erroneous religions the least mischievous. There is not the slightest chance that the Jewish religion will spread. The Jew does not wish to make proselytes. He may be said to reject them.[25] He thinks it almost culpable in one who does not belong to his race to presume to belong to his religion. It is therefore not strange that a conversion from Christianity to Judaism should be a rarer occurrence than a total eclipse of the sun. There was one distinguished convert in the last century, Lord George Gordon; and the history of his conversion deserves to be remembered.[26] For if ever there was a proselyte of whom a proselytising sect would have been proud, it was Lord George; not only because he was a man of high birth and rank; not only because he had been a member of the legislature; but also because he had been distinguished by the intolerance, nay, the ferocity, of his zeal for his own form of Christianity. But was he allured into the synagogue? Was he even welcomed to it? No, Sir; he was coldly and reluctantly permitted to share the reproach and suffering of the chosen people; but he was sternly shut out from their privileges. He underwent the painful rite which their law enjoins. But when, on his death-bed, he begged hard to be buried among them according to their ceremonial, he was told that his request could not be granted. I understand that cry of “Hear.” It reminds me that one of the arguments against this motion is that the Jews are an unsocial people, that they draw close to each other, and stand aloof from strangers. Really, Sir, it is amusing to compare the manner in which the question of Catholic emancipation was argued formerly by some gentlemen with the manner in which the question of Jew emancipation is argued by the same gentlemen now. When the question was about Catholic emancipation, the cry was, “See how restless, how versatile, how encroaching, how insinuating, is the spirit of the Church of Rome. See how her priests compass earth and sea to make one proselyte, how indefatigably they toil, how attentively they study the weak and strong parts of every character, how skilfully they employ literature, arts, sciences, as engines for the propagation of their faith. You find them in every region and under every disguise, collating manuscripts in the Bodleian, fixing telescopes in the observatory of Pekin, teaching the use of the plough and the spinning wheel to the savages of Paraguay. Will you give power to the members of a Church so busy, so aggressive, so insatiable?” Well, now the question is about people who never try to seduce any stranger to join them, and who do not wish anybody to be of their faith who is not also of their blood. And now you exclaim, “Will you give power to the members of a sect which remains sullenly apart from other sects, which does not invite, nay, which hardly even admits neophytes?” The truth is, that bigotry will never want a pretence. Whatever the sect be which it is proposed to tolerate, the peculiarities of that sect will, for the time, be pronounced by intolerant men to be the most odious and dangerous that can be conceived. As to the Jews, that they are unsocial as respects religion is true; and so much the better: for, surely, as Christians, we cannot wish that they should bestir themselves to pervert us from our own faith. But that the Jews would be unsocial members of the civil community, if the civil community did its duty by them, has never been proved. My right honourable friend who made the motion which we are discussing has produced a great body of evidence to show that they have been grossly misrepresented;[27] and that evidence has not been refuted by my honourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford. But what if it were true that the Jews are unsocial? What if it were true that they do not regard England as their country? Would not the treatment which they have undergone explain and excuse their antipathy to the society in which they live? Has not similar antipathy often been felt by persecuted Christians to the society which persecuted them? While the bloody code of Elizabeth was enforced against the English Roman Catholics, what was the patriotism of Roman Catholics? Oliver Cromwell said that in his time they were Espaniolised. At a later period it might have been said that they were Gallicised. It was the same with the Calvinists. What more deadly enemies had France in the days of Louis the Fourteenth than the persecuted Huguenots? But would any rational man infer from these facts that either the Roman Catholic as such, or the Calvinist as such, is incapable of loving the land of his birth? If England were now invaded by Roman Catholics, how many English Roman Catholics would go over to the invader? If France were now attacked by a Protestant enemy, how many French Protestants would lend him help? Why not try what effect would be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy which has made the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman and the French Calvinist a good Frenchman?[28]

Another charge has been brought against the Jews, not by my honourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford—he has too much learning and too much good feeling to make such a charge—but by the honourable Member for Oldham, who has, I am sorry to see, quitted his place. The honourable Member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a mean race, a sordid race, a money-getting race; that they are averse to all honourable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments. Such, Sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered. England has been to the Jews less than half a country; and we revile them because they do not feel for England more than a half patriotism. We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honourable professions. We long forbade them to possess land; and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition; and then we despise them for taking refuge in avarice. During many ages we have, in all our dealings with them, abused our immense superiority of force; and then we are disgusted because they have recourse to that cunning which is the natural and universal defence of the weak against the violence of the strong. But were they always a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoarding race? Nobody knows better than my honourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford that there is nothing in their national character which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. He knows that, in the infancy of civilisation, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and their poets. What nation ever contended more manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence and religion? What nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if, in the course of many centuries, the oppressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, while excluded from the blessings of law, and bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and of slaves, shall we consider this as matter of reproach to them? Shall we not rather 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.

Sir, in supporting the motion of my honourable friend, I am, I firmly believe, supporting the honour and the interests of the Christian religion. I should think that I insulted that religion if I said that it cannot stand unaided by intolerant laws. Without such laws it was established, and without such laws it may be maintained. It triumphed over the superstitions of the most refined and of the most savage nations, over the graceful mythology of Greece and the bloody idolatry of the Northern forests. It prevailed over the power and policy of the Roman empire. It tamed the barbarians by whom that empire was overthrown. But all these victories were gained not by the help of intolerance, but in spite of the opposition of intolerance. The whole history of Christianity proves that she has little indeed to fear from persecution as a foe, but much to fear from persecution as an ally. May she long continue to bless our country with her benignant influence, strong in her sublime philosophy, strong in her spotless morality, strong in those internal and external evidences to which the most powerful and comprehensive of human intellects have yielded assent, the last solace of those who have outlived every earthly hope, the last restraint of those who are raised above every earthly fear! But let not us, mistaking her character and her interests, fight the battle of truth with the weapons of error, and endeavour to support by oppression that religion which first taught the human race the great lesson of universal charity.

NOTES

[1] The full title of the publication which forms the peg for Macaulay’s essay is _Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations affecting natural born Subjects of His Majesty professing the Jewish Religion, commonly called Jews_. It was printed in 1829 by G. Taylor, Printer, 7 Little James Street. In the article in the _Westminster Review_, April 1829, occasioned by this same pamphlet, the address of the printer, George Taylor, is given as _Lamb’s Conduit Passage, Red Lion Square_. The _Statement_ must have appeared in two forms. Macaulay describes it as octavo, but the pages of the copy which Mr. Israel Solomons possesses measure 12½ by 7¾ inches. The margins in this copy have been cut for binding. It was meant to _fold_ in four, as is shown by the manner in which the title is repeated on the fourth side. The title as there printed is _exactly that cited by Macaulay_. Probably the document was originally a Petition to the House of Commons.

The _Statement_ is anonymous, but bears the clear hallmark of Francis Henry Goldsmid’s style. _Cf._ D. W. Marks and A. Löwy, _Memoir of Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid_, 1879, p. 23 [second edition, 1882, p. 27]. The author opens with the general assertion that no man ought to be deprived of civil or political right because of his religious opinions, “unless it can be shewn that, from the removal of their disabilities, injury is likely to result to the community at large.” The _Statement_ goes on to argue that such removal would not injure the religion or threaten the government of England, for, on the one hand, Jews do not proselytise, and, on the other, they are noted for their “proverbial loyalty.” The experience of the happy effect of emancipation in France, America, and the Netherlands is next appealed to. This leads up to a short survey of the history of the Jews in England before the expulsion in 1290, and after the return in the time of Cromwell, and an able argument as to their legal status—including their right to hold land—follows. The whole concludes with an appeal for the “Omission in the Oath of Abjuration and Dissenters’ Declaration, when respectively taken, or made and subscribed, by persons professing the Jewish religion, of words obviously inconsistent with such profession.” It is altogether a moderate and able presentation of the case for the Jews, and fairly deserved the prominence given to it by Macaulay.

[2] Sir Robert Grant (1779-1838) was born in Bengal, and, after a distinguished career at Cambridge, entered Parliament in 1818. In 1830 his first Bill was rejected; but a better fate rewarded his effort of 1833. Soon afterwards he went to India as Governor of Bombay. Grant was the author of some famous sacred poems, one of the best and most popular of which was his translation of Psalm civ., “O Worship the King.”

[3] There had been a change of Government. Parliament was dissolved on July 24, 1830, and in the new parliament the Duke of Wellington’s ministry fell, to be succeeded by the Grey administration.

[4] See comments on this passage in the Introduction.

[5] Professor F. C. Montague remarks that “probably Perceval, Goulburn, and Vansittart are more particularly meant.” These were Chancellors between 1810 and 1830.

[6] Gatton (Surrey) and Old Sarum (Wilts) were “pocket boroughs without inhabitants,” and, like the corrupt borough of Penryn (Cornwall), were disfranchised by the Reform Act. Macaulay was far from implying that Jews actually did own any corrupt boroughs. His argument is based on the fact that nothing in the then state of the law could prevent such ownership.

[7] “Henry Pelham Francis Pelham Clinton, fourth Duke of Newcastle, 1785-1851, a high Tory, ejected some of his tenants at Newark for having voted on the Whig side in the general election of 1830” (Professor Montague).

[8] This refers to Daniel O’Connell—who, it may be remembered, was a consistent friend of the Jewish claims.

[9] William Laud (1573-1645), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, was one of the principal advisers of Charles I. in his repression of the Puritans and the enforcement of episcopacy upon Scotland. He was attainted in January 1645, and was executed on Tower Hill.

[10] In the _Edinburgh Review_ these sentences follow: “It is to put the effect before the cause. It is to vindicate oppression by pointing to the depravation which oppression has caused.” Macaulay felt, no doubt, that the word “depravation” was unjust, and conveyed an unintended stigma.

[11] Gaspard de Coligni was a Huguenot victim of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in 1572.

Sir Henry Vane was a leader in the Opposition against Charles I., and was executed in 1662.

[12] The answer given by the lay barons at the Parliament of Merton in 1236 to the proposal of the prelates to make the English law of legitimacy correspond with that of other countries. Sir James H. Ramsay, _The Dawn of the Constitution_, pp. 77, 78, following the text of the Statutes of the Realm, reads _mutare_ in the active, instead of _mutari_ in the passive.

[13] The argument is lengthily and moderately stated in a _Times_ leader for May 3, 1830.

[14] This passage confirms what is said in the Introduction as to Macaulay’s personal familiarity with synagogue usages.

[15] Matthew xxvi. 24.

[16] Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 66, 32.

[17] Luke x. 29. “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is from Leviticus xix. 18.

[18] In its issue of April 3, 1830, the newspaper _John Bull_ (which bore on its title-page the legend, “For God, the King, and the People”) published a violent attack on Mr. Grant’s Bill. The article took the form of a sarcastic plea for the emancipation of the gipsies. There was a further attack on April 25, and on May 23 the same paper, while rejoicing at the rejection of Mr. Grant’s “romantic and un-Christian Bill,” expressed its dissatisfaction with the speeches of the opponents of Jewish emancipation. They were altogether too conciliatory and tolerant to please _John Bull_.

[19] Sir Robert Inglis (1786-1855) entered Parliament in 1824. He opposed the various Catholic Relief Bills and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Sir Robert Peel had supported the Catholic claims, and Inglis thereupon successfully opposed him (1829) as candidate for the University of Oxford. Inglis continued to represent the University until his withdrawal from parliamentary life. He persistently opposed the Jewish emancipation. “Inglis was an old-fashioned Tory, a strong Churchman, with many prejudices and no great ability” (_Dictionary of National Biography_).

[20] Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832) supported Grant’s first resolution in 1830; in the interim he had died. Mackintosh, who entered the House in 1813, enjoyed much reputation as a philosopher.

[21] The Member for Oldham was the noted William Cobbett (1762-1835), who, after an extraordinary career in England and America, entered the first Reformed Parliament. Cobbett was very violent in his opposition to Jewish liberties. See note 24.

[22] The Albigenses, who took their name from one of their strongholds, the town of Albi on the Tarn, were an anti-sacerdotal sect in the South of France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, infected with Manichæan heresy. They suffered the most horrible cruelties in the crusade carried on against them from 1209 to 1218 under the command of Simon de Montfort, the father of the Simon de Montfort so well known in English history. See T. F. Tout, “The Empire and the Papacy,” pp. 216, 401.

[23] See note 6.

[24] On March 1, 1833, Mr. Hill presented a petition by Unitarians in favour of the “removal of all Religious Disqualifications still existing, and especially for the removal of the Disabilities affecting the Jews.” It was on this occasion that Cobbett raised the objection to which Macaulay’s argument is the reply. The reference to Paine’s “Age of Reason” is also a covert hit at Cobbett, who reprinted Paine’s work.

[25] Macaulay here overstates the case. The synagogue has at various times been reluctant to receive and unwilling to seek proselytes. But it does not reject them.

[26] Lord George Gordon (1751-1793), the third son of Cosmo George, Duke of Gordon, was charged with high treason for having in 1780 headed terrible riots in London directed against the removal of certain Roman Catholic disabilities. He was acquitted on the ground that he had no treasonable intentions. He afterwards embraced the Jewish faith, and was received into the covenant of Abraham in Birmingham, but without the sanction of the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities in London. A vivid description of the “No Popery” riots of 1780 will be found in Dickens’ “Barnaby Rudge,” which also contains a reference to Lord George’s change of religion.

[27] In the report of Grant’s speech in the _Times_ of April 18, 1833, occurs this passage:—

“Now with respect to the supposed anti-social principles of the Jews, the most sacred of their books had told them to ‘Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace’ [Jeremiah xxix. 7]. This principle was fully recognised by the Jews under Napoleon, who asked whether they held themselves bound, as citizens of the State in which they resided, by the laws and customs of that State? The Sanhedrin replied that every Jew, regarded as a citizen by the State, must obey the laws of the country which protected them and conform to the regulations of the civil code; in short, that Israelites were bound to consider such countries as their own, and serve and defend them to the utmost. In a catechism of the elements of the Jewish faith, intended for the use of Hebrew youths, it was stated that the Messiah not having come, the king under whose protection they lived must be considered as a King of Israel, and that the country in which they enjoyed such protection was to be looked upon in the same light as the land of their forefathers.”

Grant followed this up by a masterly survey of the relations of Jews to various States in the past and present, and cited evidence of the patriotism and good citizenship of Jews wherever they had been permitted an opportunity of displaying those qualities.

[28] In Hansard’s report (col. 236) Macaulay finished the paragraph with the words: “Why not try the same experiment which has been tried in France and Prussia, and which was now trying in the United States of America?” In the same debate (col. 342), in the report of Mr. Joseph Hume’s speech, occurs the passage: “He had a letter in his hand, though he would not trouble the House by reading it, from Mr. Quincy Adams, the late President of the United States, stating that there were no better citizens than the Jews, and expressing the hope that ere long the whole of Europe would see the justice and wisdom of freely conceding to them the fullest political privileges.”

_FOREIGN EDITIONS_

[The numbers in square brackets at the end of the entries indicate the press-marks of the copies in the British Museum.]

(_a_) MACAULAY’S ESSAY

(1) [French]. _Essais politiques et philosophiques par Lord Macaulay, Traduits par M. Guillaume Guizot._ Paris, 1862. Pp. 380-398. [12273 k 3.]

(2) [Dutch]. _Historische en letterkundige Schetsen door Lord Macaulay. In het Hollandsch overgebragt door Dr. A. Pierson._ Haarlem, 1865. I. 105-120. [12272 aa 23.]

(3) [Italian]. _Saggi biografici e critici di Tommaso Babington Macaulay. Versione dall’ Inglese con note di Cesare Rovighi._ Torino, 1859-1866. V. 288-302. [12273 aa 3.]

(4) [English text, with Introduction and Notes in German]. _Civil Disabilities of the Jews. Eine 1831 veröffentlichte Abhandlung von Thomas Babington Macaulay. Herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Dr. F. Fischer._ Berlin, 1882. [4033 f 32 (10).]

(5) [Roumanian]. The son of Prince John Ghica (for some time Roumanian minister at the Court of St. James’), who was educated in England, translated Macaulay’s Essay on the “Civil Disabilities of the Jews” into Roumanian. The translation appeared as a small pamphlet in Bucharest. Political exigencies and the rise of anti-Jewish feeling in Roumania demanded the suppression of the translation, to avoid awkward questions and to remove a possible bar to the young man’s career. The pamphlet has in consequence almost completely disappeared. A few copies, however, have been saved, and one of them is in the library of the Rev. Dr. M. Gaster.

(_b_) MACAULAY’S SPEECH

(1) A German translation of Macaulay’s Speech on “Jewish Disabilities” was published in 1881, in reply to the anti-Semitic campaign of Stöcker and Henrici. The full title is Macaulay’s _Rede für die Emancipation der Juden gehalten im Englischen Unterhaus, am 17 April 1833_. _Übersetzt von A. E._ Frankfurt a. Main, 1881. [4033 f 31 (12).]

(2) A Spanish translation will be found on pp. 109-122 of _Discursos Parlamentarios de Lord Macaulay, Traducidos del Inglés por Daniel López_. Madrid, 1885. [8139 aa 66.]

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
Edinburgh & London