the House for the first time in favour of the measure, distinguished himself by a speech of calm and earnest argumentation.

The Earl of Winchilsea, in support of the amendment, treated the subject with much more warmth of language. He declared the Bill to be a greater insult to the honour and glory of God than any which had been brought before the House; he protested against admitting one rich Jew to Parliament in order to reward him for favours rendered to the Minister of the day; and he hoped that none of the Bishops would vote in favour of the Bill, for if it passed, within a year not one of them would have a seat in that House.

The Bishop of St. David's sur veyed the subject in an historical and philosophical point of view, reviewing the relations of Christians and Jews doctrinally and socially; he traced the effects of mutual persecutions in still surviving asperities; showed how much they have in common; and maintained the real sin of this country in respect of the Jews was in the old persecutions, not in the recent indulgences.

The Bishop of Oxford entered into the more familiar and popular topics of the controversy. He maintained that the sitting in Parlia. ment was no right, but a trust conferred at the will of the constituents, who had a perfect title to exclude Jews from that trust. He quoted documents, especially "A Manual of Judaism" by Mr. Joshua van Oven, to show that the Jews were really a distinct and alien race, and that the earnest men among them deprecated any social or political connection with other nations, as weaning the affections of the Hebrew people from the true Jerusalem and

Canaan. That people had gone on for 1800 years, receiving a weakened tradition from their half unbelieving fathers; and how could it be expected that a race immersed in the pursuit of gain, with nothing to counteract that passion but a belief in the truth of their religion, would be benefited by an admission into the British Parliament? Abhorring as he did the cruelty with which the forefathers (so called incorrectly) of the Jews were treated, he contended that that cruelty was based upon truth, and was kinder than the false humanity which would teach this people that the revelation made to them was either a false or an immaterial one.

He must remark, that every Jew who was now in England had come to England (or his immediate ancestors had done so) within the last two hundred years; and they had come on the condition that they should have shelter and kindness, but not political privileges.

No doubt there might have been in certain cases certain advantages derivable from the election of Jewish representatives. Far be it from him, however, to say that he knew any such instance. He professed to have no knowledge of those "secrets of the prison-house." He repeated, that though he knew nothing about the secrets of the late election for the city of London, yet that he was not without some know. ledge of the public history of that transaction. ("Hear, hear.") It was pretty well known that the Prime Minister's election for that City was not a feat of very easy accomplishment, and that there were no small difficulties to be overcome, where there was a good deal of character on the one side and much capital on the other. Declarations in fa

vour of removing Jewish disabilities might under such circumstances have been found exceedingly convenient.

He called upon the House to beware of doing what this measure would do-unchristianize the country; a measure which would yield nothing in return-not the smallest accession of strength, or of consistency, or of character-a measure which would injure all and strengthen none.

The Earl of Ellesmere contended that the British Jew never sheltered himself from civil responsibility and patriotic duties under the plea of being an alien, and that it was neither equitable nor safe to exclude from the making of laws those who had so large an interest in the well-being of the community.

Lord Stanley contended against the admission as a right. If there was no law excluding the Jews from Parliament before the time of James I., it was because no Jew had a right to set his foot in this country while the statute which now operates to his exclusion was suspended during the reign of William and Mary, he could not obtain letters of naturalization; and if born here, he could acquire no freehold qualification.

The Earl of Dysart deemed it inexpedient to admit Jews, because a Jew must wish to see our Christian institutions destroyed.

Lord Brougham argued in support of the Bill, replying especially to the speech of the Bishop of Oxford. He denied the alleged partnership at the London election, between Lord John Russell and Baron Rothschild: it was slanderously said, and if a Bishop had not said it he should have said that it was false. (Laughter.) Lord John had always refused to be a party to

the putting forward of Baron Rothschild, because of the contest it would provoke; so that his only obligation" to Baron Rothschild was the injury which he sustained by the contest which ensued.

66

As to the danger of admitting the Jews, Lord Brougham pointed to the analogous case of the Roman Catholics since Emancipation-the Protestant Establishment had been as efficiently vindicated as ever. As to the fear of "unchristianizing' the Commons, they were unchristianized already. (Laughter.) Would the Commons come to the bar of that House by message, or in any other way, and by their words, acts, or desires, pretend to call themselves a Christian assembly? He did not know what would become of them; but assuredly it was not to be denied that we had a motley sort of legislation, half infidel, half Christian. Of Her Majesty he would only say, may God long preserve her in her Christian character to reign over a tolerant and enlightened people. As for the Ministry, they were undoubtedly nearly as unchristian as the Commons. (Laughter.) So that he was afraid they must stand before the world as half Christian, half Pagan

a Pagan House of Commons, and a perfectly Christian House of Lords. (Laughter.) He saw little use, therefore, of so much argument about unchristianizing the Legislature.

The Bishop of Oxford explained. He regretted that any words should have fallen from him in the warmth of debate which might appear susceptible of the meaning which his noble and learned friend had affixed to them. He had not the smallest idea that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had been privy to any bribery what

Session the discussion of Irish questions occupied a less proportion than usual of the time and attention of Parliament. A Bill to facilitate the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland, to which we shall hereafter refer more particularly, was introduced by the Lord Chancel lor early in the year, though it did not finally pass into law until many months afterwards; with this exception, during the spring of the present year, Irish measures engaged little of the public notice. But as the summer advanced af fairs in that unhappy country began to asume a very threatening aspect. Menaces of a general insurrection had, indeed, for several months been openly thrown out, but the people of this country had been so accustomed to the vapouring threats and treasonable harangues of Irish agitators, that they turned for some time an incredulous ear to the rumours of an outbreak. The preachers of rebellion were, how ever, for once in earnest. They had gained, in the person of Mr. Smith O'Brien, a leader of rank and influence, who, however fanatical and wild in his views, was at least sincere in the cause which he had espoused, and willing to stake his own life and fortune in the desperate game in which his party were engaged. He was supported by a number of active coadjutors, less eminent indeed than himself in social rank and position, but possessed of no mean powers of talent and education, which made them formidable instruments in stimulating disaffection and in

peasantry to unlawful designs. The narrative of the events that marked the Irish insurrection of 1848 belongs to another part of this work. Happily it proved too insignificant to be worthy of any serious regard, and to a certain extent it answered a good purpose, by exposing to the eyes of the English people the real weakness of that much vaunted agitation, which was crushed, almost without an effort, the moment it broke out into overt acts. The ignominious defeat of Mr. O'Brien's ludicrous attack on the civil power, and the unresisted capture of his person, annihilated at once both the dignity and the danger of a conspiracy which had been magnified by the vanity of a few conceited demagogues into a civil war. Nevertheless, frivolous as the outbreak was, and chimerical as the alarms which had been entertained were proved to be, it was impossible to doubt, from the evidence as to the state of public feeling which it brought to light, that a wide-spread and deep-rooted disaffection pervaded a large part of the population. However little apprehension therefore might be felt that the distempers of the country would break out into war, there was the greatest reason to dread that they might explode in the shape of outrage and crime, and that although the right of the Crown might be in no jeopardy, the life and property of individuals would be seriously endangered. Under these circumstances the necessity for making the bands of the law more stringent, and arming the heads of the