Passing beyond the legal rights of the Crown, the opponents of life-peerages dilated upon the hazardous consequences of admitting this new class of peers. Was it probable that such peerages would be confined to law-lords If once recognized, would they not be extended to all per sons whom the ministers of the day might think it con venient to obtrude upon the House of Lords? Might not the hereditary peers be suddenly overpowered by creatures of the executive government, not ennobled on account of their public services, or other claims to the favor of the Crown, but appointed as nominees of ministers, and ready to do their bidding? Nay! might not the Crown be hereafter advised to discontinue the grant of hereditary peerages altogether, and gradually change the constitution of the House of Lords from an hereditary assembly, to a dependent senate nominated for life only? Nor were there wanting eloquent reflections upon the future degradation of distinguished men, whose services would be rewarded by life-peerages instead of by those cherished honors, which other men not more worthy than themselves - had enjoyed the privilege of transmitting to their children. Sitting as an inferior caste, among those whom they could not call their peers, they would have reason to deplore a needless innovation, which had denied them honors to which they were justly entitled. Such were the arguments by which Lord Wensleydale's patent was assailed. They were ably combated Decision of by ministers; and it was even contended that the Lords. without a reference from the Crown, the Lords had no right to adjudicate upon the right of a peer to sit and vote in their House; but, on a division, the patent was referred to the Committee of Privileges by a majority of thirty-three.1 After an inquiry into the precedents, and more learned and ingenious debates, the committee reported, and the House agreed, "that neither the letters-patent, nor the letters-pat1 Content, 138; not content, 105. Hansard's Debates, 3d Ser., cxl. 263. ent with the usual writ of summons issued in pursuance thereof, can entitle the grantee to sit and vote in Parliament." 1 Some hereditary peers, who concurred in this conclusion, may have been animated by the same spirit of jealousy which, in 1711, had led their ancestors to deny the right of the Crown to admit Scottish peers amongst them, and in 1719 had favored a more extensive limitation of the royal prerogative; but with the exception of the Lord Chancellor, by whose advice the patent had been made out, - all the law-lords of both parties supported the resolution, which has since been generally accepted as a sound exposition of constitutional law. Where institutions are founded upon ancient usage, it is a safe and wholesome doctrine that they shall not be changed, unless by the supreme legislative authority of Parliament. The Crown was forced to submit to the decision of the Lords; and Lord Wensleydale soon afterwards took his seat, under a new patent, as an hereditary peer of the realm. Further proceedings in relation to But the question of life-peerages was not immediately set at rest. A committee of the Lords having been appointed to inquire into the appellate jurisdiction life-peerages. of that House, recommended that her Majesty 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.2 In reviewing the rapid growth of the temporal peers sitLords spirit- ting in Parliament, it is impossible not to be struck with the altered proportions which they ual. 1 Hansard's Debates, 3d Ser., cxl. 1152 et seq.; Report of Committee of Privileges; Clark's House of Lords' Cases, v. 958. 2 Hansard's Debates, 3d Ser., cxlii. 780, 899, 1059; Ibid., cxlii. 428, 583, 613 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, and 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 twenty-one to twentysix, to whom have been added 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 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.1 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 labors of his diocese, while it relieves 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. him from the expenses of a residence in London, at a time when they can be least conveniently borne. Attempts to ops from the House of But, however small their numbers, and diminished their influence, the presence of the bishops in Parliaexclude bish- ment has often provoked opposition and remonstrance. This has probably arisen, more from Lords. feelings to which episcopacy has been exposed, than from any dispassionate objections to the participation of bishops in the 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 favor, 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 favor. 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. 2 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." 4 Since that time, there have been no adverse "8 2 13th March, 1834. Ayes, 58; Noes, 125. Ayes, 53; Noes 180. 1 16 Car. I. c. 27. Ayes, 92; Noes, 197. motions in Parliament, and few unfriendly criticisms elsewhere, in relation to the Parliamentary functions of the bishops. to the bish Their place in our venerable constitution has hitherto been upheld by every statesman, and by nearly all Circumstanpolitical parties. At the same time, the liberal ces favorable policy of the legislature towards Roman Catholics ops. 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. The various changes in the constitution of the House of Lords, which have here been briefly sketched, have Political posiconsiderably affected the political position and in- tion of the fluence of that branch of the legislature. House of Lords. 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 favor 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. But however the individual privileges of peers may have been affected by the multiplication of their numbers, it is |