The Project Gutenberg eBook of Essay and speech on Jewish disabilities
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Essay and speech on Jewish disabilities
Author: Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay Macaulay
Editor: Israel Abraham
Solomon Levy
Release date: April 16, 2025 [eBook #75879]
Language: English
Original publication: Edinburgh: Jewish Historical Society of England, 1910
Credits: Bob Taylor, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAY AND SPEECH ON JEWISH DISABILITIES ***
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.
My honourable friend has appealed to us as Christians. Let me then
ask him how he understands that great commandment which comprises the
law and the prophets. Can we be said to do unto others as we would
that they should do unto us if we wantonly inflict on them even the
smallest pain? As Christians, surely we are bound to consider, first,
whether, by excluding the Jews from all public trust, we give them
pain; and, secondly, whether it be necessary to give them that pain in
order to avert some greater evil. That by excluding them from public
trust we inflict pain on them my honourable friend will not dispute.
As a Christian, therefore, he is bound to relieve them from that pain,
unless he can show, what I am sure he has not yet shown, that it is
necessary to the general good that they should continue to suffer.
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
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAY AND SPEECH ON JEWISH DISABILITIES ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
