T

THE EPISCOPAL PEERAGE.

11

neglected, and allowed to pass his days in penury and obscurity and, alas! this must be the lot of the greater portion even of such- -we are told that the avocations of the bishop as a spiritual peer prevent his giving that attention to his diocese and clergy which it so imperatively demands. If we find a youth fresh from college, and with few other claims to preferment than that he is the son, son-in-law, or nephew of a prelate, promoted over the heads of older, more experienced, and more deserving men—and this too is, unhappily, a matter of every-day occurrence—we are at once reminded, that the pomp and pride of lordship necessitates a suitable provision for family connections, and that if this cannot be made honestly, it must be made dishonestly. In fact, all episcopal misdoings are traced to the seat in the House of Peers; and it is fondly imagined by some, that we have nothing more to do, in order to obtain a bench of bishops like to the apostles, than forthwith to evict from the national legislature all the members of the order. Let us however examine the state of the case as it stands.

The presence of a few dignified ecclesiastics, say the advocates of things as they are, sheds an atmosphere of religion about the deliberations of parliament, and adds not a little to that reverential tone which the English legislature has always regarded things sacred. This assertion may pass for what it is worth, but it is a mere assertion. We have no reason whatever to believe in the existence of this more reverential tone, as peculiar to our parliament; it characterises nearly all Christian legislatures alike, and moreover it varies with the varying circumstances of the time. It was not found in the age of Walpole; it was not aided by such prelates as Blackburne. Had Swift been made a bishop (and he was very near being so), he would not have been a very bright example of it; nor would Laurence Sterne, who was not far off at one time from the mitre. The truth is, that the taste and spirit of the age has changed-Josiah has succeeded to Amonand the House of Lords is decorous, because gentlemen are educated in a decorous manner.

But another very remarkable reply may be given to the theory in question; it is that the religious element in the House of Lords, so far as it is actively evolved, does not rest with the bishops, but with certain lay-peers, such as Lords Shaftesbury, Roden, Bandon, the Duke of Manchester, and others. These make the Upper House what it is, in respect to religion. We do not deny that all questions concerning the interests of religion are met and discussed by our prelates in

a becoming spirit, but they are apt to be looked on as retained advocates; and their advocacy cannot fail, from this very consideration, to lose, in such an assembly, much of its weight. On the other hand, when they take a part in mere secular discussions, they labour under a twofold disadvantage, for one party will consider them out of their sphere, and the other as wanting in experience and knowledge of business -a reproach which does in general attach to the clergy of all ranks. Here and there we find a prelate who readily obtains the ear of the House. Sometimes, as in the case of the venerable Primate, from the sanctity of his personal character; sometimes, as in that of the Bishop of London, from the combination of great activity and talent, immense wealth, and enormous patronage—all which things must produce a corresponding influence; and sometimes, as in the case of the Bishop of Oxford, from a peculiarly fascinating eloquence. Occasionally, too, the House finds on the episcopal bench an able and practised debater, such as the present Bishop of Exeter, who is listened to in the same proportion, and much for the same reasons, as Mr. D'Israeli is in the House of Commons.

But after making these exceptions, we shall be compelled to admit that the bishops have little weight in the Upper House. Indeed they have themselves tacitly arrived at the same conclusion; for their attendance is by no means constant, or even frequent, and the part which they take in debate still less so. If they are urged to give their votes on subjects not obviously of a religious character, they not unfrequently urge as a reason for not doing so, that their diocesan engagements prevent their giving sufficient attention to the topics in question; doubtless a good reason, but one which may be replied to as a certain old woman once replied to Philip of Macedon-" Then be no longer king."

If this then were the sole reason why bishops should form part of our legislative body, it would seem hardly worth while to make it a subject of contention. If from the present we turn to the past, we shall have no very favourable account to give of episcopal legislation. An analysis of their votes will show us that the bishops were almost always on the side of power and against improvement; that they resisted the abolition of slavery, the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the Reform Bill, and the cessation of monopoly; and that they were ever partisans of the crown against the people, and of the oligarchical against the national interests. We say this not with any intention to judge the present pre

EFFECTS OF ABSOLUTE POWER

13

lates by the acts of their predecessors, but only to show that if the great benefits which are attributed to them as legislators be diligently sought for we must go back into remote antiquity to find them. The anti-church party say, "What good do the bishops do in Parliament?" and their advocates will, we must freely acknowledge, find it very difficult to answer the question. But they may retort with anotherWhat harm do they do? Paley excuses, rather than defends their presence, by observing that if more subserviency to the crown be found among them than is quite pleasant to contemplate, they are the more wisely placed in that branch of the legislature from which little patriotism is to be expected. So do we translate his sarcastic observations on the spiritual peerage.

Nepotism, neglect of duty, narrowness of mind, ecclesiastical corruption, want of moral courage, are all charged on the bishops by some writers because they are peers; the accusers forgetting, so far as any of their accusations are true, that it is the spiritual and not the temporal office which furnishes the means of the crime. Dismiss the Right Rev. Dr. A. B. from the House of Lords, and leave him with the same immense patronage, and the same uncontrolled power over the clergy, and you will have produced no change in the matters complained of. Until human nature can be made other than what it is, absolute power must produce tyranny and oppression; rank and wealth, accompanied by adulation in large measures, must produce pride and self-seeking; and it must be remembered that even were the whole bench shut out from the Upper House, they would lose nothing in social rank; they would still be addressed as "your lordship" and your grace," the mitre would still do duty as a coronet, and the Convocation would soon be resuscitated as an Ecclesiastical Parliament.

66

There is an incalculable difference between the honours paid to the spiritual and those paid to the temporal peerage. The hereditary lord lives habitually with his equals; his position is generally pretty well marked out for him; he is merely a titled gentleman, and has no more irresponsible power than his own game-keeper; he is of much less account personally than a leading member of the House of Commons, and if he betake himself to any profession it is that of war, in which he learns to obey-let the example of the gallant Earl of Cardigan be remembered as an instance in point;above all, he is not surrounded by an obsequious circle to whom his will is law, and whose bread is in no small measure

dependent upon his caprice. It is said that an Englishman naturally loves a lord, and so he does; but in the case of a bishop, superadded to his aristocratic lord-worship, there is a feeling of religious veneration often amounting to superstition and servility.

All that renders the position of a prelate more perilous to his own soul than that of the temporal peer, would remain if the doors of the House of Lords were closed against the order from this day forward: nor would any unwholesome influence be withdrawn from that House. So far as the bishops make their voices heard there at all, it is now, at all events for good, whatever it may have been up to a recent period; so that neither those who would remain, nor those who would depart, could be expected to profit by the change. As a panacea for the evils of the Church, we are therefore of opinion that none could be found more delusive than the removal of the bishops from the Legislature.

But again, it is said, they are there on false pretences; they are to represent the clergy, their views, their hopes, their interests, and this it is notorious they do not do. The clergy are not eligible to the Lower House-why, it is difficult to say; their exclusion, as it stands, is an ex post facto law, made to mortify the electors of Middlesex and to keep John Horne Tooke out of Parliament. Now, as a compensation for this injustice, we are gravely told, "You have no right to complain; the bishops are in the House of Peers and thus you have your representatives!" In the first place we would demur to this theory, that any injustice done to one man can be made up for by a favour granted to another. In the second, we by no means see how any man's interests can be said to be considered in the bestowing of additional powers on his master, that master being already, so far as he is concerned, despotic. But the truth lies much deeper than this; the whole is, or rather was, a piece of state-craft and not a piece of church-craft. Government wanted votes in both Houses-and mitres were great political prizes, and accordingly the theory stood thus: the State said to the Church, let me choose your bishops and I will make them princes, and the Church consented to the bargain; and thus Convocation was thrown over, and the union between Church and State cemented by a new tie. It is quite true that we can point out no period in our ecclesiastical history when any such compact was made, but we can show abundantly the same spirit, working by the same means, and to obtain the same result. Our own Norman and Plantagenet kings fought

PARLIAMENTARY INFLUENCE.

15

against the Pope to have the choice of their own bishops, and at last they succeeded; not because in those days they wanted votes in Parliament, but because they wanted the weight of the episcopal influence, which was then far greater than it has ever been since. As Parliament grew, there grew with it a new use to which the prelates of the Church might be put, and it was but playing a different tune on the same instrument and to the same purpose.

And now that we have reached another era, and the episcopal bench is no longer available as a political engine-now that the peerage itself is less potent, and that the House of Commons has gathered into its own hands all the real power of the State-in what way does the government look on the spiritual peerage? The answer is significant. A bishop is not the less a bishop even though he has not a seat in the House of Lords, and accordingly when the episcopate is enlarged, the new prelate does not succeed to that seat till the decease of some previous holder. Make new bishops if you will, only do not make them lords of Parliament! So that the government has itself decided that the Upper House is none the worse for the exclusion of the new bishop, and the bishop himself none the worse because he is excluded. Surely this is one of "the signs of the times."

We have already attempted to show, and we trust successfully, that this much-discussed measure would, by itself, be attended by no beneficial result. In itself, it is and must he a matter of indifference. The legislature neither takes up a bishop's time, nor gives him any peculiar status in society; neither enables him to do good, nor prompts him to do harm. Most of the objections against it are mere party objections, and dictated rather by a dislike to see the Church splendid, than by a desire to see her effective. The duties of a bishop, as they are generally understood and practised, are by no means laborious; and were he so inclined, he might, without in the least neglecting them, become a very efficient legislator. But there is another light in which the subject may be regarded, one in which it occupies a secondary and not a primary place. It is easy to conceive a state of things in which the number of our bishops might be greatly augmented, and their revenues considerably reduced; in which there would be a less painful distance between the bishop and his clergy, and the episcopal rule more that of a father and less that of a sovereign. In this case attendance on the House of Lords would cease; time would be wanting for the duties of a politician, for a new view would arise of those of a chief