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.