should be empowered by statute, to confer life-peerages upon two persons who had served for five years as judges, and that they should sit with the lord chancellor as judges of appeal and deputy speakers. A bill, founded upon this recommendation, was passed by the House of Lords; but after much discussion, it miscarried in the House of Commons.1 spiritual. In reviewing the rapid growth of the temporal peers sitting in Parliament, it is impossible Lords not to be struck with the altered proportions which they bear to the lords spiritual, as compared with former times. Before the suppression of the monasteries by Henry VIII., in 1539, when the abbots and priors sat with the bishops, the lords spiritual actually exceeded the temporal lords in number. First in rank and precedence,-superior in attainments,—exercising high trusts and extended influence, they were certainly not inferior, in political weight, to the great nobles with whom they were associated. Even when the abbots and priors had been removed, the bishops alone formed about one third of the House of Lords. But while the temporal lords have been multiplied since that period about eight-fold, the English bishops sitting in Parliament have only been increased from twentyone to twenty-six,-to whom were added, for a time, the four Irish bishops. The ecclesiastical element in our legislature has thus become relatively inconsiderable and subordinate. Instead of being a third of the House of Lords, as in former times, it now I Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxlii. 780, 897, 1059 Ibid., cxliii. 428, 583, 613. forms less than a fifteenth part of that assembly: nor is it likely to receive any accession of strength. When the pressing demands of the church obtained from Parliament the constitution of the new bishopric of Manchester, care was taken that not even one spiritual lord should be added to the existing number. The principle of admitting a new bishop to sit in Parliament was indeed conceded; but he was allowed that privilege at the expense of the more ancient sees. Except in the case of the sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, and Winchester, the bishop last appointed receives no writ of summons from the crown to sit in Parliament, until another vacancy arises.' The principle of this temporary exclusion of the junior bishop, though at first exposed to objections on the part of the church, has since been found to be not without its advantages. It enables a bishop recently inducted, to devote himself without interruption to the labours of his diocese, while it relieves him from the expenses of a residence in London, at a time when they can be least conveniently borne. Attempts to exclude bishops from the House of Lords. But, however small their numbers, and diminished their influence, the presence of the bishops. in Parliament has often provoked opposition and remonstrance. This has probably arisen, more from feelings to which episcopacy has been exposed, than from any dispassionate objections to the participation of bishops in the 1 Bishopric of Manchester Act, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 108. See also Debates, 1844, in the House of Lords, on the St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses' Bill. legislation of the country. Proscribed by Presbyterian Scotland,--ejected from Parliament by the English Puritans,'-repudiated in later times, by every sect of dissenters, not regarded with too much favour, even by all the members of their own church, and obnoxious, from their dignity and outward pomp, to vulgar jealousies,-the bishops have had to contend against many popular opinions and prejudices. Nor has their political conduct, generally, been such as to conciliate public favour. Ordinarily supporting the government of the day,even in its least popular measures,-leaning always to authority, as churchmen, opposed to change,— and precluded by their position from courting popularity, it is not surprising that cries have sometimes been raised against them, and efforts made to pull them down from their high places. In 1834, the Commons refused leave to bring in a bill for relieving the bishops of their legislative and judicial duties in the House of Peers,' by a majority of more than two to one. By a much greater majority, in 1836, they refused to affirm 'that the attendance of the bishops in Parliament, is prejudicial to the cause of religion.' And again in the following year, they denied, with equal emphasis, the proposition that the sitting of the bishops in Parliament tends to alienate the affections of the people from the established Church." 16 Car. I. c. 27. Ayes, 58; Noes, 125. 16th February, 1837. Ayes, 92; Noes, 197. 26th April, 1836. Ayes, 53; Noes, 180. Since that time, there were no adverse motions in Parliament, and few unfriendly criticisms elsewhere, in relation to the Parliamentary functions of the bishops. Their place in our venerable constitution has Circum stances favourable to the hitherto been upheld by every statesman, and by nearly all political parties. At the bishops. same time, the liberal policy of the legislature towards Roman Catholics and Dissenters, has served to protect the bishops from much religious animosity, formerly directed against the church, of which they are the most prominent representatives. Again, the church, by the zeal and earnestness with which, during the last thirty years, she has followed out her spiritual mission, has greatly extended her own moral influence among the people, and weakened the assaults of those who dissent from her doctrines. And the increased strength of the church has fortified the position of the bishops. That they are an exception to the principle of hereditary right-the fixed characteristic of the House of Lords-is, in the opinion of many, not without its theoretical advantages. Political the House of Lords. The various changes in the constitution of the House of Lords, which have here been position of briefly sketched, have considerably affected the political position and influence of that branch of the legislature. It is not surprising that peers of ancient lineage should have regarded with jealousy the continual enlargement of their own privileged order. The proud distinction which they enjoyed lost some of its lustre, when shared by a larger body. Their social preeminence, and the weight of their individual votes in Parliament, were alike impaired by the increasing number of those whom the favour of their sovereign had made equal to themselves. These effects, however, have been rendered much less extensive than might have been anticipated, by the expansion of society, and by the operation of party in all political affairs. a source of But however the individual privileges of peers may have been affected by the multiplica- Its ention of their numbers, it is scarcely to be largement questioned that the House of Lords has strength. gained importance, as a political institution, by its enlargement. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the jealousy of the peers had led either to such a legal restraint upon the prerogative, as that proposed in the reign of George I., or to so sparing an exercise of it, that the peerage had remained without material increase since the accession of the House of Hanover. Is it conceivable that an order so limited in number, and so exclusive in character, could have maintained its due authority in the legislature? With the instinctive aversion to change, which characterises every close corporation, it would have opposed itself haughtily to the active and improving spirit of more popular institutions. It might even have attempted to maintain some of its more invidious privileges, which have been suffered to fall into desuetude. Hence it would necessarily have been found in opposition to the House of Commons, the press, and popular opinion; while its limited and unpopular constitution would have failed to give |