The thing was

self to that, he does not pretend to say that he opposes the Bill because the religion of the Jews is dangerous. No such pretence is put forth at all. No such outcry as that raised last session is heard now. The opposition which has made its appearance now is, if I may use the phrase without giving offence to my hon. friend, nothing but the offal-nothing but the leavings of the intolerance which was so abundant last year. All that the House has been told is, that the Jews are not Christians, and that therefore they must not have power. But this has not been declared openly and ingenuously, as it once was. Formerly the persecution of the Jews was at least consistent. made complete once by taking away their property, their liberty, and their lives. My hon. friend is now equally vehement as to taking away their political power; and yet, no doubt, he would shudder at what such a measure would really take away. The only power that my hon. friend seems to wish to deprive the Jews of is to consist in maces, gold chains, and skins of parchment, with pieces of wax dangling at the ends of them. But he is leaving them all the things that bestow real power. them to have property, and in these times property is power, mighty and overwhelming power-he allows them to have knowledge, and knowledge is no less power. Then why is all this power poisoned by intolerance? Why is the Jew to have the power of a principal over his clerk, of a master over his servant, of a landlord over his tenant-why is he to have all this, which is power, and yet to be deprived of the fair and natural consequences of this power? Why, having conceded all this, is my hon. friend afterwards to turn round and say, "You shall have all these real effects and advantages of your situation, but in the fair sequence of their possession you shall be crippled and borne down."

He allows

As things now stand, a Jew may be the richest man in England; he may possess the whole of London; his interest may be the means of raising this party or depressing that—of making East India directors, or sending members into Parliament; the influence of the Jew may be of the first consequence in a war which shall be the means of shaking all Europe to its centre.

His power may come into play in assisting or retarding the greatest plans of the greatest princes; and yet, with all this confessed, acknowledged, undenied, my hon. friend would have them deprived of power! If, indeed, my hon. friend would have things thus arranged, I would put a question to him thus: Does he not think that wealth confers power? If it do, can he be prepared to say that the Jews shall not have power? If it do not, where are we to draw the line? How are we to permit all the consequences of their wealth but one? I cannot conceive the nature of an argument that is to bear out such a position. If it was to be full and entire persecution, after the consistent example of our ancestors, I could understand it. If we were called on to revert to the days when, as a people, they were pillaged—when their warehouses were torn down-when their every right was sacrificed, the thing would be comprehensible. But this is a delicate persecution, with no abstract rule for its guidance. As to the matter of right, if the word "legal" is to be attached to it, I am bound to acknowledge that the Jews have no legal right to power; but in the same way, 300 years ago, they had no legal right to be in England; and 600 years ago they had no right to the teeth in their heads; but if it is the moral right we are to look at, I say that, on every principle of moral obligation, I hold that the Jew has a right to political power. Every man has a right to all that may conduce to his pleasure, if he does not inflict pain on anyone else. This is one of the broadest maxims of human nature, and I cannot therefore see how its supporters can be fairly called upon to defend it—onus probandi lies, not on the advocates of freedom, but on the advocates of restraint. Let my hon. friend first show that there is some danger-some injury to the State, likely to arise from the admission of the Jews, and then will be the time to call upon us to answer the case that he has made out. Till such an argument, however, is fully made out, I shall contend for the moral right of the Jews. That they wish to have access to the privilege of sitting in Parliament has already been shown; it now remains to show that some harm is calculated to result from that admission. Unless this is shown, the refusal is neither more nor less than persecution.

My hon. friend put a different interpretation upon the particular word I have used; but the meaning will still remain the same; and when we come to define the sense, it must be found that we are only quibbling about a word. Any person may build a theory upon phrases: with some, perhaps, burning would be persecution, while the screwing of thumbs would not be persecution; others may call the screwing of thumbs persecution, and deny the justice of that expression when used to whipping. But according to my impression, the infliction of any penalties on account of religious opinions, and on account of religious opinions alone, is generally understood as coming within the meaning of the term, for all the purposes of political argument. It is as much persecution in principle as an auto-da-fé; the only difference is in degree. Defining persecution, then, as I do, I cannot conceive any argument to be adduced in favour of the mildest degree of this injustice, which, logically speaking, though not morally, indeed, might not be used with equal force in favour of the most cruel inflictions from similar motives. I have to make my apology for having occupied so much of the time of the hon. gentlemen present; but I could not refrain from making known my sentiments to this House of Commons, which has done more for the rights of conscience than any Parliament that ever sat. Its sessions of 1828 and 1829 have been marked by a glorious course in favour of religious liberty; and I hope that, before our separation, this session of 1830 will put the finishing hand to that work which so many great and good men wish to see accomplished, but which cannot be till this most desirable measure shall be carried into effect.

NOTE. Sir James Macintosh, who followed Macau'ay in the debate, observed that, "The speech which they had heard from his honourable and learned friend was one which, he had no doubt, would make its full impression on the House, it being every way worthy of the name he bore."

8

SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.

DECEMBER 13, 1830.

On the Presentation of a Petition from West India Planters, and others interested in Property in the West Indies.

Ir the petitioners who ask for compensation, and if the noble marquis (Lord Chandos) who presented the petition, and the hon. member (Mr. Douglas) who spoke last but one, had confined themselves to the subject of compensation, I should not have considered it necessary to say one word on the subject. I think I believe the public also think, that compensation ought to be given. I agree with the noble lord and the hon. gentleman, and I agree, too, with the petitioners, that whenever slavery is extinguished, all the loss of property which may arise should be made good by the Government. I acquiesce in this opinion, not because I acquiesce with what fell from the hon. member for Dumfries, which, by the by, I did not understand, about the compact of society. I do not see from that species of metaphysical argument how protection for property is necessary; but it is found by experience that it is bad for men that property should not be secured, and that great inconvenience resulted from violating property, and on that ground it is said that men ought to have their property protected. After the public have declared, by Acts of Parliament, that men should be property, after they have been bought and sold, deposited as pledges, and made to answer for dowers, great inconvenience would result from taking away that species of property, and the masters and owners ought to be compensated. I declare that I think, in common with most of those who petitioned the House, that slavery ought to be extinguished; but I and the petitioners alike contemplate, on its extinction, giving a reasonable compensation to the masters of slaves. If, therefore, the noble lord and the hon. gentleman had confined

themselves to compensation, which I admit to be just, I should not have said one word on the subject; but they have mingled other matters with that which I always desire to see separated from it. I admit that exaggeration cannot do any good, and I regret, as much as the noble lord and the hon. member for Dumfries, that either anger or exaggeration should have been displayed on either side.

It was a charge against the petitions for the abolition, that they were all got up under the influence of the Anti-Slavery Society. The petitions were got up under that influence—was that extraordinary? Who should inform the people of England, busily employed in their own domestic occupations, of what occurred in the West Indies, if some such society did not undertake the task? But the influence the society possessed was over the public mind. It had no other. It appealed to the public reason. It had no monopoly of the public press. Its reports and proceedings are open to cavil and objection. The periodical literature is as much in the hands of the West Indians as their opponents. Magazines and reviews are on their side; of celebrated works, I believe that the Quarterly Review has always been in their favour. I do not believe that there is one of those periodical publications which are most read-I mean the newspapers-I do not believe that there is one of the London newspapers that is fully and completely on the side of the Abolitionists. The organs of the West India body are as numerous as those of the other side, and their funds are at least equal to those of the Anti-Slavery Society. It was not long ago that the West India body gave as much to one writer as the Anti-Slavery Society received and employed in a year. The fact was, that the West India body was in the wrong. All men were active to embrace the opposite opinions. They had been progressively gaining ground, and all the efforts of the WestIndians had failed to stem the tide of public opinion. They had been trying since 1802, and were carried further and further away every year from their object. The public feeling since that time had ebbed and flowed somewhat; but, on the whole, it had been much strengthened. After every ebb it had only run