Letter XII.—To Isaac Moss, Slop-seller, Portsmouth.
Dear Isaac,—I don’t know whether Portsmouth has any aldermen, but if it has, I hope you’ll get into a gown outright. The thing’s as good as done. What poor George the Third, Lord Eldon, and such folk think of it, there’s no saying, but in a twinkling a Jew may be an alderman! Even the Bishop of London swallows the measure, although shuddering at it, as if it was a black draught. However, Isaac, what I write to you about is this. Mr Ashurst, in the common council of London, spoke about the Jews; and after him the Duke of Cambridge in the House of Lords. Both of ’em gave their reasons for what is called Hebrew emancipation; and droll it is to consider ’em one with the other. Here they are:—
| Mr Ashurst. | Duke of Cambridge. |
|---|---|
| “No man was consulted as to who should be his parents; what constitution, organisation, or temperament he should receive; what should be his climate, his colour, or country; what should be his language; what literature should influence him; what education he should receive; nor as to what general external circumstances should surround him. They saw and knew as a fact that religion was geographical. If a man was born in Turkey, he was a Mahometan; in Africa, a pagan; in India, he was one of the multitudinous castes of sects which prevailed there; and in a Christian country a Christian. Why, then, for a matter which was independent to himself, should man lose in civil rights? That religion which was true would ultimately prevail, but not by persecution.” | “I have had occasion for some time to know the good which persons professing the Jewish religion have done; and particularly with reference to the different charities to which I belong; and I can certainly say that it is to them that we owe a great deal, and that they contribute a very large portion to the funds of the charities over which I have the honour of presiding. Two of the individuals whose names were mentioned in the speech of my noble and learned friend, on a former occasion, are personally known to myself. One was formerly the High Sheriff of the county of Kent—Mr Solomons; and I can bear witness to the good he has done. Also there Sir Moses Montefiore, ... learning what was the object of the meeting I was about to attend, he gave me a very handsome sum, which he desired me to present. I will not mention what the sum was, for it would be a violation of good taste to do so.” |
Observe this, Isaac: Mr Ashurst argues upon what are called broad, wide, and benevolent principles. He would give liberty to the Jew because the man was born a Jew; because he couldn’t choose his father and mother, his creed or colour. It is his fortune to be a Jew, as it may be the fortune of the Bishop of London to be a Christian. Therefore the common councilman would give him equal freedom with the rest. Now, the royal Duke would emancipate the Jew because “he contributes a large portion” to the funds of Christian charities. With the Duke, the Jew buys the favour with hard cash! Sir Moses ought to be an alderman, because he gave the Duke “a very handsome sum” for a charitable meeting!
The Jew touches the common councilman through his reason, his sense of justice; but the Hebrew moves the royal Duke purely through his breeches-pocket. “We owe a great deal to the Jews,” says Cambridge; “and therefore they ought to be freed.” Now suppose, Isaac, that the Jews had been poor; that they had never subscribed handsome sums; could the Duke, according to his own logic, have lifted up his voice in their behalf? I fear not.
Thus, then, it is, Isaac, Mr Ashurst and men of his school give liberty as a right—the Duke of Cambridge and such reasoners sell it.
There’s a good deal, Isaac, to think of in what Mr Ashurst says; that no man chose his colour or his country. Only suppose now, if Sir Robert Peel had been born one of the—what d’ye call ’em?—the spinning dervishes, whose whole religion is said to be in doing nothing but going round, and round, and round! Why, one can’t help thinking that Sir Robert would have gone round with any of ’em.
Just suppose, too, Sir James Graham born a Chinaman. Instead of dining off Christian beef and mutton, don’t you think he’d have eaten rats glazed with rice? and now, all the world knows, a rat’s a thing he can’t abide to think of. Only think, Isaac, how many white-skinned public folks, if they’d been only born in Africa, would have been born as black—yes, quite as black—as if they could now be turned inside out. Is it any merit of Lord Brougham’s that he wasn’t born to play with knives and balls like Ramo Samee? On the other hand, is poor Ramo to be despised because he hasn’t the salary of a shelved chancellor? I should think not.
There’s capital wisdom in what Mr Ashurst says—the best of wisdom. And let us hope that even lords and bishops will by-and-by come to understand it.
And so no more from your old friend,