The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-14

verdict, and accordingly ask leave TO re.
tire. making at the same time a Reservation
to themselves and. their successors of all
such rights in judicature as they possess
by law. This denial to the Bishops OF
the privilege Of by the House of Lords is
due To the fact that, as one OF the
standing orders declares, not being en-
nobled in blood, they are lords Of Parlia-
ment only and not Peers.
The lords spiritual are. indeed. the
oldest of the three estates Of the realm.
In the beginning of Parliament the House
of Lords was mainly an ecclesiastical body,
the prelates, abbots and priors far out
numbering the barons, who formed the
oldest order Of the nobility. Prior to the
Reformation there were two Archbishops,
twenty-four Bishops, twenty-six mitred
Abbots and two Priors in the House Of
Lords; its ecclesiastical character is also
illustrated by the fact that the Office Of
the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, from
Thomas a Beckett to Sir Thomas More, a
period Of nearly four hundred and fifty
years, was almost invariably filed by
prelates.
The change in the numerical proportions
between the lords spiritual and temporal
came at the Reformation when the abbots
and priors disappeared with the suppression
of the monasteries, and the number of
spiritual peers was reduced to the two
Archbishops and twenty-four Bishops. The
spiritual peers were excluded from Parlia-
ment fer twenty years. or until the Restora-
ton. Charles ii. was called to the throne
by what is called the Convention Parlia-
ment in 1890. hat was imme diately
dissolved and = new Parliament met in
1901, still without the Bishops; but il re-
pealed the act of 1892 and thus the lords
spiritual again formed part OF the House
Of Lords.
As many as six attempts have been made
in the HOUSE of Commons since the Reform
Act in 1882 TO set rid OF the Bishops as legis-
lators; and they have not only all failed,
though five Of them were made in Liberal
Parliaments. but were also opposed by the
Liberal leaders.
Their position in the House Of Lords does
not seem to make them proud and up
lifted. Not n trace OF arrogance is ever to
he found in the demeanor of the white and
black robed group on the Episcopal bench;
humility is much more conspicuous.
From my own observation of the House
Of Lords says one writer, IL should say
that the Bishops are timid rather than
self-assertive in declaring their opinions,
and moreover. that their views are received
with stih courtesy rather than with eager
acqulescance by that somewhat super
cilious and cold assembly, Indeed, il IL
curious to note how frequently in the hiog-
raphies Of Bishops who have been Lords Of
Parliament are to be found complaints of
the limited extent of the influence of the
Bishops bench in the House of Lords"
Il am thoroughly sick Of Episcopal life
in Parliament, declared the late Archf ishop
OF York, where we are hated by the peers
as a set OF parvenus whom they would
gladly rid themselves OF II they dared, and
only allowed on sufferance to speak no~
andthen on Church questions after a timid
and resUcCtful sort"
T..a Bishops hold aloof from political
affairs. When party issues are az stake
their bench il always empty. II in clear
from their parliamentary action for many
years that they recognize they are in the
House of Lords primarily TO represent the
interests and defend the rights Of the es-
adjustment. and they endeavor to dis
charge their trust conscientiously in trying.
and it may be u"nconganial. circumstances =.
But IL is plain also that they do not concern
themselves solely with questions affecting
the ChurCh. Students OF the parliamentary
de bates must know that measures tending
10 the moral and social we'll being Of the
community TO the opening Of the gates
~ happiness in this world to tina greatest
possible number. so far IA they can be
opened by iegislation-r"ceivc their earnest
support.