The present edition is a verbal reprint of Macaulay’s own revision. In the notes attention is drawn to some of the modifications which the author introduced, but a few words may here be said on one or two points in which Macaulay’s revision is particularly interesting. Thus, in the speech as reported in Hansard (3rd Series, Vol. XVII., col. 232), there occurs this passage, deleted in the revision:— “No charge could be brought against the Jews of evincing any disposition to attack the Christian religion, or to offend its professors. It was true that one imputation of such a nature had lately been thrown out in that House, but it was entirely unfounded. _He had seen a great deal of the worship of the Jews_, and he had heard a great deal on the subject from others, and _from all that he had seen_ and all that he 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.” The imputation had been made in the House by William Cobbett, on March 1, 1833. The most noteworthy point is, however, the sentences which have been italicised. They give direct evidence that Macaulay must often have visited the synagogue services. In the revision of the essay, Macaulay, by omitting a couple of sentences, laid himself open to a charge of formal fallacy. Professor F. C. Montague (in his edition of the Essays, Vol. I. p. 289) writes: “When Macaulay asserts the identity of the two propositions—It is right that some person or persons should possess political power, and, Some person or persons must have a right to political power—he commits an obvious fallacy.” But in the _Edinburgh Review_ Macaulay continued: “It will hardly be denied that government is a means for the attainment of an end. If men have a right to the end, they have a right to this—that the means shall be such as will accomplish the end.” There is thus no fallacy in the argument as Macaulay intended it to be understood. It is equally difficult to admit the validity of Professor Montague’s further comment: “Neither is it true in all cases, and without any qualification, that differences of religion are absolutely irrelevant to the bestowal of political power. In some cases the differences of thought and feeling between the adherents of different creeds are so many and so considerable that harmonious co-operation in the same body politic becomes almost inconceivable. Whilst Mohammedanism and Hinduism remain what they are, it is scarcely conceivable that Mohammedans and Hindus could really blend in one constituent body for the choice of a parliament which should govern India.” It remains to be proved by experience whether the results of Lord Morley’s constitutional reforms will not belie this fear, and whether the joint admission of various sects to political responsibility will not, in the end, mitigate