THE BISHOPS AND THE LORDS.
TT was convenient for the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sir William Harcourt, and the other apologists for the Bishops in the House of Lords, to assume, as our respected correspondent, Mr. Archer Gurney, assumes in his letter of to-day, that the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords would be the carrying of the outworks of the Establish- ment. We maintain, on the other hand, that it would be the throwing overboard of a deck-load which goes near to oinking the ship. And it is not only we who maintain it. It is clear, by the list of names in the very close division of Friday week, that there are other cordial friends of the Establishment who believe this too. It is clear, again, that some of the journals which most cordially dislike the Esta- blishment take the same view, witness the remarkable article in the Pall Mall Gazette of last Saturday, in which that journal adopts our argument, but turns it, as it were, inside out, by using it for a purpose the most opposite to ours. Its plea for the Bishops was that so long as they sit in the House of Lords, there will never be wanting effective illustrations of the mischiefs of an Established Church • and that if they were removed from the House of Lords' the nation might be much slower in learning the lesson of Disestablishment than they wish it to be. "The chief reason," said our contemporary, "why the Bishops should be allowed to remain in the House of Lords is to illustrate before the eyes of the nation some of the evil consequences of an Established Church. As long as the lawn-sleeves remain in the gilded Chamber, we need never lack for proof of the political mischief of a Church Establishment. The voice of the Bishops is given uniformly by a majority of their order on the side of everything that is politically bad, and of a great deal that is morally indefensible." And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury told the representa- tive of this very paper, on occasion of that personal " in- terviewing " which we regret to see coming into vogue in England, that "the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords would,- it was recognised, be the first step towards Disestabliahment." By whom is this recognised By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Sir William Harcourt, and all who have to make the most of what arguments they have for a custom which is visibly threatening the connection of Church with State, and threatening it more seriously than any other incident of the alliance ; and a custom which is, nevertheless, so easily separable from the Establishment, that we can hardly conceive of an excuse for saying that the latter will be the weaker for the cutting-away of this excrescence, and, on the other hand, can hardly over-esti- mate the advantage such an amputation would give to the friends of the Established Church. We are astonished that the Pall Malre representative did not immediately call his Grace's attention to that remarkable" plea for the Bishops" which his own chief had inserted. But so far as we can judge, the interview seems to have been conducted on the principle
of gently soothing the Archbishop, in order the better to bring out that mild and innocent succession of confidences which we may perhaps regard as the archiepiscopal equivalent for convictions in other men. -
But now, on what grounds is it maintained that unless the Bishops sit in the House of Lords, the Church will be dis- established? It is said that their exclusion would be a rude inroad on the Constitution,—that in making so great a breach with the past as dismissing the Bishops to their proper work, you would show the world how easy it is to make holes in the existing system, and that one hole would lead to more. Well, we quite admit the force of that argument, if this breach with an old-established custom had not been more or less forced upon the very best Bishops by the urgency of their own sense of duty, so that it must be regarded as in the nature of a "preservative addition," as Cardinal Newman would call it, to the existing Establishment, rather than an assault upon it. So far is it from being true, as Mr. Serjeant Waddy coolly as- serted, that the Bishop of Exeter's attendance in Parliament had rendered it necessary to create a Bishopric of Truro, that the very opposite account of the creation of that diocese must be given. The Bishop of Exeter has attended the House of Lords exceedingly little, just because he felt the urgent claims of his diocesan work interfering with his duties as a life peer. The division of his diocese was due to its enormous extent, and to the keen desire of one of the most hardworking and efficient of the Bishops to have the work of the Church in Devonshire and Cornwall performed more efficiently. We doubt if any Bishop in good health and strength attends the House of Lords less frequently than the Bishop of Exeter, and it is just the same with all the best Bishops, all the Bishops who think of their duties as Bishops first, and of their ornamental position as Peers afterwards. But it seems to us absurd to say that a change which has been forced on the most efficient and popular of the Bishops by the very necessity of the case, could be regarded as a dangerous innovation on the Constitution. We have proposed to reserve the seats of the two Archbishops in the House of Lords, on the ground that their duty to the State is perhaps quite as urgent as their duty to their dioceses. Properly speaking, Suffragan Bishops should do the greater part of the Archbishops' diocesan work, and such Suffragans might very well be found for them. if they were inclined,—as we think they ought to be,—to take up the statesmanlike portion of their duties in good earnest, and restrict their ecclesiastical duties to duties of general supervision, and to making themselves more effectual links between the various Bishops of their own Pro- vinces. But for the Bishops at large, it is perfectly obvious that the less they meddle with the House of Lords, the more essential will they make themselves to the life of the Church, and that gradually this has dawned upon the Bishops themselves. It seems to us, therefore, ridiculous to say that a change which their own consciences have partly initiated,—a change which has done more to render those of them who have adopted it popular in their dioceses than any success as Life-Peers could have done,—is likely, if finally sanctioned by the State, to sheer on the enemies of the Establishment to a deadly attack.
But then, it is said, it is necessary for the Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, in order that they may "have touch " of the affairs of the greater world, and enable them, as the Archbishop of Canterbury confided to the Pall Mall's representative, to "take larger views." Well, all we can say is that, if sitting in the House of Lords enables the Bishops to take larger views, we wish we could see more trace of the larger views which they are supposed to take. Here is worthy Dr. Benson taking what we suppose he calls "larger views" of the Sunday question,—and these views are, first, that it would be a great blessing if the people would make their own wishes distinctly visible, and that in the absence of any authoritative declaration, you must go by the evidence of the petitions against Sunday recreations,—and, next, that if it could be only shown that Sunday labour was not to be in- creased, he should have no objection to the opening of places of quiet recreation on a Sunday. If these are "larger views," we fail to see how the House of Lords has " enabled " him to take them. They are, as it seems to us, the timid and tentative views of a man who does not like either to say boldly, We 'ought to make the Sunday more vivid and happy, and if the people are afraid of the encroachments of labour, we ought to take some means of guaranteeing them against that danger,' or to say, We ought not to make the Sunday more vivid and happy, because if we do, it will be less spiritual.' The Arch- bishop's "larger view" is the view of a leader who wants to shift the responsibility of advising, on to the people who need the advice. Surely, an Archbishop should not tell us that he would like to know the people's wishes on a subject of this kind, and should tell us what he would like the people's wishes to be. He should lead the people, and not say that he humbly waits upon their decision. It is the same with other Bishops. We never get views that seem to us less like large views from any class of politicians than we do from the Bishops. Episcopal views are sometimes very narrow, but when narrow they are at least strong. We know what the Bishop of Lincoln means. But then he does not get "larger views" from his seat in the House of Lords. Those who do get "larger views" show their largeness of view chiefly by timidity and tentativeness, by hesitating between two opinions, by advising delay till somebody else shows them what to do, by vacillation and flaccidity of thought. We call views of this kind loose, rather than large.
But after all, the main argument against the Bishops sitting in the Home of Lords is this,—that the most constant in their attendance get a certain worldliness by their position there, rather than any largeness ; that they do not make good Life-Peers, and do lose influence over their clergy, so far as they assert themselves in the House of Lords. There is not a Bishop on the Bench who has ever de- livered a good spiritual speech on the righteousness or un- righteousness of a war. There is not a Bishop on the Bench who has ever discussed the question of the franchise, the question of democracy, from a spiritual point of view at all, or who has ever spoken on such a question with anything like the authority,for instance, of Lord Shaftesbury. The nearest thing we can remember to a characteristically spiritual Peer's speech on a great secular question was Dr. Magee's speech on the drink question, and that was the most exceptional of speeches. The truth is, that the Bishops give no strength at all to the House of Lords. They are almost worthless as Life-Peers. And their presence in the House of Lords does greatly accentuate the grievance of the Dissenters, who say very justly that as their Churches have no official representatives in the House of Lords, the Church ought not to have the power there of casting (on re- ligious questions) a very strong party vote, which the Dissenters equal in numbers and equal in electoral rights, have no °bane° at all of counterbalancing. That is a very serious grievance, and we cannot, for our own parts, see a single reason why the Episcopacy should command so many votes in the House of Lords, when it makes so poor a use of them, when it so often wastes them, and hardly ever uses them except on some great question of party religion, on which the Nonconformists would take a very different line if they had any mouthpiece in the House of Lords, and on which, therefore, it is a most bitter thing for the Noncomformists to reflect that they have no truth mouthpiece in the Howe of Lords.
Previous page
