NOW, what ought to rejoice us all, thoſe of our own Nation are not only long ſince divested of ſuch barbarous and bloody Pračtises but likewise have by very sensible degrees (tho’ not so far as might be wished) quitted certain narrow and bigoted Principles, not more contrary to common Humanity and Genuine Religion, than to their own publick and private Interest. Our political Contentions, both the sign and support of Liberty, are no contradićtion to this Assertion. The vulgar, I confess, are seldom pleased in any Country with the coming in of Foreigners among 'em: Which proceeds, first, from their ignorance, that at the beginning they were such themselves; secondly, from their grudging at more Persons sharing the same Trades or Business with them, which they call taking the Bread out of their Mouths; and thirdly, from their being deluded to this aversion by the artifice of those who design any change in the Government. But as wise Magistrates will prevent the last, and are senſible of the first, so they know the second cause of the People's hatred, to be the true Cause of the Land's Felicity; and therefore, not minding those who mind nothing but their selfiſh Proječts, they'll ever encourage a Confluence of Strangers. We deny not that there will thus be more tailors and shoomakers; but there will be also more suits and shoes made than before. If there be more weavers, watchmakers, and other arteficers, we can for this reason export more cloth, watches, and more of all other commodities than formerly: and not only have ’em better made by the emulation of so many workmen, of such different Nations; but likewise have ’em quicker sold off, for being cheaper wrought than those of others, who come to the same market. This one Rule of More, and Better, and Cheaper, will ever carry the market against all expedients and devices. But to these Reasons we may further add, that the same vulgar, who are so averſe to the coming in of poor Strangers, are as well pleas'd with the rich, which will generally hold true of the jews, who moreover do always take care of their own Poor, wherever they are, and can not therefore be said, (according to our own Country phraſe just now cited) to eat the Bread out of the Mouths of others. All these Advantages are yet more evident with respect to the produćt of Lands, which shews (to uſe the * words of Mr. Locke) how much NUMBERS of MEN are to be preferred to LARGENESS of DOMINIONS and that the INCREASE of LANDS, and the right employment of them, is the great END of Government. That Prince (says he) who shall be ſo wiſe and god like, as by ESTABLISHED LAWS of LIBERTY, to secure Protection and encouragement to the HONEST INDUSTRY of mankind, against the OPPRESSION OF POWER, and the NARROWNESS OF PARTY, will quickly be too hard for his Neighbours. Such a Prince thou haſt upon the Throne, O Britain As a GENERAL NATURALIZATION is your peculiar interest, ye Men of fruitful acres. --John Toland (1714) Reasons for Naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland, Chapter XVI. (All italics in original; I will quote Toland's Reasons by paragraph below.)
A few days ago I bumped into Toland's Reasons while looking for an online copy of his The art of governing by parties because the latter is discussed in Isaac Kramnick's wonderful Bolingbroke & His Circle (recall last week). Reasons calls for (nearly) full citizenship rights for Jews. (The exception being positions of authority in the Church of England.) Since anti-semitism is not uncommon among even very perceptive Enlightenment thinkers (recall Hume), I thought it worth digressing.
One of the oddities of our age, in which so many scholars embrace the reality and significance of moral progress, is to be found in the near total neglect of John Toland. Even historians of philosophers, who pride themselves on their contextual knowledge of the history of philosophy, are, by and large unfamiliar with his pioneering views, including (recall) his feminism, and his clever use of genealogical reasoning (recall; and here). I have never heard his very early advocacy of Jewish emancipation mentioned in a scholarly context. Toland has not been very well served by those with more familarity with his writings. For example, back in 1969 Isaac E. Barzilay argues (not incorrectly) that "most of the arguments are drawn from Rabbi Simone Luzzatto's Discourse on the Jews of Venice." (76)
As it happens, Toland does not hide debt to Luzzatto (who he praises greatly). But even if Barzilay were right, that still leaves some arguments not drawn from Luzzato. And while undoubtedly there are many excellent reasons to study the past, it cannot hurt from time to time, to reflect a bit on how it is possible, amidst so much wanton cruelty and intellectual perniciousness, some thinkers arrived at the right moral and political position well ahead of their contemporaries. And why, perhaps, they were ignored by them.
It is, of course, natural for readers to connect Toland's argument in favor of the naturalization of Jews to Locke's account of toleration. So, for example, the eminent Toland scholar, Ian Leask, writes in a recent article, "Toland cites Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government in the Reasons – but it seems that Locke’s First Letter concerning Toleration, the Epistola, is a more significant formative force." (3) He is right about the significance of Locke's views on toleration--Toland makes an explicit point that because the Jews lack a homeland, they will not naturally serve a foreign power. (VI) Laesk has lots of interesting to say connecting the arguments to Toland's fascination throughout his writings with Jewish history, Machiavellianism, and what has come to be known as political hebraism, in particular, of the Harringtonian kind (Toland edited Harrington). But somewhat oddly while he mentions it, Laesk ends up ignoring the explicit argument drawn from Locke (quoted above).
Toland's general argument assumes, against prejudicial "bias," that humans are by nature equal; it is only "the different methods of government and education" that account for observed differences. (ch. VIII; in my terminology, he is a methodological analytic egalitarian.) And, he also assumes, as common knowledge (at least among the learned), "we all know that numbers of people are the true riches and power of any country." (ch. III) In addition, he offers empirical-historical reasons (by contrasting Dutch experiences with other European countries) for claiming that a number of policies are conducive to growing populations and wealth: population will grow in those countries that practice "liberty of conscience;" that are welcoming immigrants from "all nations to the right of citizens" (III); and practice "inviolable security of...goods and persons." (IV) These points are not original in Toland; they are implied, conceptually, in the final chapters of Spinoza's Theological Political Treatise; we find them developed more empirically in De La Court's True Interest of Holland (which was (recall) quite popular in England). These are works are familiar to Toland.
Even so, the particular turn Toland gives to the argument draws out an important strand of Locke's second Treatise. Well, it is important to me because. as it happens, I quoted the very same paragraph from Locke's second Treatise (recall) a few months ago.* I noted that Locke treats it as an aside on the "art of government." In particular, the art of government is presented while Locke offers an instrumental defense of property rights as conducive to consumption and rising standards of living with the development of a growing, skilled labor force. Locke is, in fact, committed to policies that promote population growth, including immigration. It's that argument that Toland notes explicitly in the passage quoted above.
In fact, Toland's argument is directed, in part, at those among the British pro commercializing elite (the "wise magistrates") for whom national economic policy meant a growing population, increasing production, growing exports ("export more cloth, watches, and more of all other commodities than formerly"), increasing competitive markets, and cheaper and technologically improved commodities ("have ’em better made by the emulation of so many workmen"). And while there is undoubtedly a hint of mercantile doctrine in here, Toland addresses the concerns of the working poor head-on. Yes, they will have to compete with new workers. But these new workers will also ensure a larger internal market with an improved cost of living ("cheaper wrought" goods).+ That is to say, Toland grasps and fully articulates the more liberal win-win logic that is essential to Locke's argument.**
I do not mean to suggest Toland's argument for Jewish emancipation is only couched in enlightened self-interest of national greatness rooted in a growing population with a growing economy and high quality goods. As the opening sentence above suggests, Toland also offers an argument from "common humanity" (the eighteenth century conceptual framework made popular by Hume and one of the roots of human rights talk down the road). That argument is rooted in the particular historical injustices committed against the Jews in England. But that's for another occasion.
For now, I wish those of you that celebrate it, a happy socially distanced Passover!
*Toland's footnote reads: "*A manuscript Addition he left in the margin to Paragraph 43, of his incomparable Essay concerning the
true Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government." (In my edition this is paragraph 42.)
+Toland also addresses the still topical concern with migrants who end up on welfare. Here is argument is not generalizable; he claims that Jews are known for doing their own poor relief.
**Obviously, Marxists deny that it is win-win, but see structural exploitation.
You may be interested in this book:
Measuring the Distance between Locke and Toland:
Reason, Revelation, and Rejection during the Locke-Stillingfleet Debate
https://wipfandstock.com/measuring-the-distance-between-locke-and-toland.html
Posted by: Jordan | 04/08/2020 at 04:28 PM