1. On O’Connell and Jewish emancipation, see Abrahamson, “Sir L.Goldsmid.” See Appendix B for a highly relevant letter from O’Connell to Goldsmid, dated 11.19.1829, and printed by Abrahamson on pp. 151-53 of his article. [Return to main text.]

2. After the failure of the 1830 bill, Macaulay intervened again in support of the 1833, 1834, and 1841 bills. It is not always noted that his argument makes reference to the financial and consequently political power of the Jews, a theme also developed in anti-Semitic circles. While proposing on a light note that "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 “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,” Macaulay also urged that it was inconsistent to deny formal political rights to Jews in a society where, thanks to their prosperity, they had already acquired the substance of political power. [Return to main text.]

3. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1830/may/04/emancipation-of-the-jews (accessed 7 June 2020) . The figure of 20,000 signatories from Liverpool given by V. D. Lipman, p. 78 ) may be a misreading. The figure of 14,000 signatures on a petition from London on behalf of Robert Grant’s same 1830 bill may also need verification. [Return to main text.]

Last modified 25 June 2020