The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-18 00:00:00

draw the line between the privileges which the Jews
ale alb! be allowed to possess, and the privileges
which the Jews. should not be allowed to possess?
Would they say that a Jew should be allowed to vote for
the return of a Member of that House, but that be
should not be allowed to be a Membe: of that House
himself? Would they say that he should be allowed to
be a ynrytnan, but that he should not be allowed to be a
Judge—that be should be allowed to give a verdict for
damages, but that he should not he allowed to grant a
new trial? Would they say that he should not be allowed
to be a Member of the Privy Council, while at the same
time he possessed an influence in the Money Market which
gave him a controul over the affairs of empires, more
powerful and extensive than that enjoyed by any of those
who were at the head of public affairs ? Would they say
that, although on the meeting of a Congress in Europe
to patch up a sudden peace, he might be treated, not as
his ancestor bad been, who was tied down in a chair
while a dentist was sent for to torture him into a cont.
pliance with extortionate demands, hut on terms of per-
fect eqnality with the assembled Statesmen, he should, at
the same time, not be permitted to sit in Parliament for
the smallest district in the country? Did those who
could thus argue, suppose that the Supreme Being—if it
were allowable to introduce so solemn a name in such a
discussion—did they suppose that the Supreme Being re-
garded forms rather than substance? and that he would
not consider it a mockery to keep the Jew from the pos-
session of political power, while, at the same time, be w"
permitted to possess that which gave political power?
The whole system of his Right Hon. Friend the Member
for Oxf it'd, went to effect a compromise between matters
Which did not admit of any compromise. It went to effect
a compromise between the principles of persecution and
the principles of toleration. But the spirit of the age
would not bear his Hon. Friend out in his proposition.
His Hon. Priend proposed to draw an arbitary line, and
to declare that on one side of that line was persecution, and
Ott the other side toleration. His Hon. Friend said, "such
and such qualifications I des not choose to call political
;sewer, and, therefore, I will give them ; such and such
qualifications I do choose to call political power, and,
therefore, I will withhold them." Why those who, in
former 'times, cut off the heads of Jews, dragged Jews at
horses' tails, and buret Jews at the stake, although they
had clime of ti e humanity of hie Hon. Friend, had much
more consistency. His Hon. Friend had repeated what
had been stated before in that House, that to admit a Jew
to the Bench was to give up the restraint which the law
at present imposed upon blasphemy. He (Mr. Macaulay)
was not prepared to defend in all respects the present laws
against blasphemy; but he was convinced that the mall'.
treance of sound and wise laws against blasphemy was
perfectly compatible with having an enlightened Jew on
the Bench. Ir. his opinion, all persons ought to have the
liberty of temperately discussing the truth of any religion,
but they ought not to have the liberty of forcing on the
netts and on the ears of their neighbours sights awl sounds
talcolated to insult and outrage them. If a man chose to
tself " Pain's Rights of Man" in a back shop, or to read in
it private room a lecture against revealed religion, in his
(Mr. Macaulay's) opinion, th it man ought not to be pro-
secuted. But if in a great public thoroughfare be ex-
hibited a hideous caricature, or if in any place of public
resort he uttered gross and outrageous expressions agsinst
that religion, which ninety nine out of a hundred of those
around him were accustomed to regard with reverence, he
ought to be punished not for a libel, but for a nuisance ; not
for attacking that which we knew to be true, but for giving
pain and disgust to his ni ighbours. Such a man was no more
entitled to offer a gross insult to religion, and say that he
had a right to freedom of opinion, than another man
would have to establish a noisome and offensive manufac-
ture in any neighbourhood, and say that he had a right to
his property : or to run up and down the streets n .keil,
and say that he had a right to lecomotion. What was
the principle by which all civilized nations were regulated
with respect to the rites of burial? That the law should
protect the remains of the dead from insult. In the le-
gislative regulations with respect to dissections, lately
made in this country, a provision was introduced to pre-
vent the feelings of the friends and relations of the de-
ceased from being outraged ; and surely the same right
which a man had that his father's body should not be
treated with indignity for the sake of science, he also had
that his religious feelings towards his Maker should not be
outraged, under the pretence of a religious discussion.
There appeared to him to be no difficulty in the case. If
that which be had just stated was the rule, he could not
see why a Jew, who was appointed to the bench, could
not conscientiously administer that rule. But no charge
could be brought against the Jews of evincing any dispo-
sition to attack the Christian religion, or to offend its
professors. It was true that one imputation of such
a nature. bad lately been thrown out in that House;
but it was entirely unfounded. He had seen a great
deal of the worship of the Jews, arid he bad heard a
great deal upon the subject from others ; and, from all
„that he had seen, and all that be 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. There was nothing
in the religious doctrines of the Jews calculated to render
them either bad subjects or bad neighbours. Their deca-
logue was the same as ours—the foundation of all their
moral law was the same as ours. It had been contended
by his Hon. Friend (the Member for the University of
Oxford), that the existence of the Prophecies, which
doomed the Jews to be miserable wanderers over the face
of the earth, was an argument against.the adoption of the
mensure proposed by his Right Hon. and Learned Friend.
He (Mr. Macaulay) felt himself capable of proving, by
absolute demonstration, that nothing could be more futile
than such a supposition. If those prophecies meant that
the Jews should never, while" as a nation they conti-
nued to wander over the face of the earth, he placed
on perfect equality in civil rights with the people
among whom they might happen to live, those pro-
phecies were false. Fur it was aa fact, that throughout
the United States of America Jews enjoyed an equal
participation of civil rights with the Americans them-
selves; and it was clear, therefore, either that the prophe-
cies were demonstrably false, or that those who put the
construction on them to which he had just alluded utterly
misapprehended their true character. As to the ultimate
return to Jerusalem, anticipated by the Jews, it was
scarcely necessary for him to observe, that remote events,
and especially events which were to occur at an indefinite
time, seldom possessed much influence over the conduct of
men. 'lf distant and contingent events possessed any
powerful influence, they should possess it over Christians
as well as over Jews ; for Christians all expected great
changes ; none supposed that the present state of things
would last for ever ; and there was one large class which
confidently anticipated the Dear approach of the l"lillenium.
There was one important point in which the Jews had a
great advent ige over the professors of any other religion
which we believed to be false. There was nut the slightest
chance that their doctrines would spread. It was notorious
that the Jews did not wish to make proeelytes--nay, they
almost rejected them, and seemed to think it culpable pre-
sumption in any one who did not belong to their race, to
aspire to belong to their religion. 'Under these Circutn-
stances, it was not at all extraordinary that the conversion
of a Jew to Christianity. was at least as rare an occurrrnee
as a total eclipse of the Suo. He had never heard but of
one such conversion, and that was a very remarkable case.
He alluded to the instance of Lord George Gordon. Now,
if there was any eonvert, of which a proselytizing sect
would have been proud, it was that individual—not only
because he was a man of high rank and large property,
and a Member of the Legislature, but because tie hail been
distinguished by the intolerance and ferocity of the zeal with
which he bad advocated his coo n peculiar doctrines of
Christianity. But how bad Lord G. Gordon been treated
after his admission by his now friends ? He aas reuctantly
and slowly initiated in all the painful ceremonials of the
Jewish religion ; but when, on his death-bed, he talked of
the rites of burial according -to the Jewish form, he was
told that those rites could not he panted to him. . But
the House had been told that the ws were an unsocial
people—that they would enter into no friendly commune

cations with their neighhours. Thus that very peculiarity
in their ch iracter which protected Christianity from the
danger of any attempts on•their part of making proselytes,
was produced against them in another sh ipe as a charge.
It was strange to compare the manner in which the ques-
tion for the emancipation of the Catholics had been argued
with the to inner in which the question fur the emancipa-
tion of the Jews was now argued. When the emancipa-
tion of the Catholics was opposed, the Catholics were
described as restless, insinuating, insatiable; as prepared
to take every advantage, and to adopt whatever measures
might be c•ilculated to give them an ascendancy. It was
stated that social, learned, artful, clever individuals of
their body were constantly employed as emissaries for the
purpose of corrupting the religious faith of the various
countries to which they -were sent ; that to carry that
great object into effect, they pretended to employ them-
selves in making astronomical observations for the Em_
pet or of China, and in imparting the lights of civilization
to the natives of Paraguay ; that go where you
wi
ll you would find Catholic Priests earnestly e,
gaiged in attempting the conversion of the members
of other religions to their own faith. But now,
when the question relAted, to the toleration of a religion, the
tonl I ke proselytes,
professors of which never attetops----
, and v. ere not content with having a separate religion un-
le-te they could live in a separate family, that very cir-