The Press. — 1857-03-07 (London, England)

THE VOTE OF THE BISHOPS.  OF the many noticeable facts connected with the late dcbates:onChina, perhaps none is more remarkable than the silent vote given in favour of the Government by no less than eighteen of the Spiritual Peers of Parliament.  We must deplore this action on the part of the prelates in question, not only on political grounds, but because we arc convinced that the Church itself cannot fail to suffer to sonic extent in public estimation from the unbecoin_ ing attitude taken by its great dignitaries. The Lord Primate may have persuaded himself that gratitude to the party which raised him so unexpectedly to his high po,lition, and has since given him so many congenial suffragans of his own peculiar views, ought to have greater weight in determining his line of conduct than the dictates of humanity or the precepts of religion. But the working clergy and right-thinking laity of his province will hardly hold hint justified in this course. The most singular feature in the vote of the Government bishops is, that not one of the eighteen felt called upon to support his opinion by a speech. Was this from some lingering feeling of compunction ? Did they compromise with the Premier, and say, " Our votes are at your service ; but " even we cannot be guilty of the indocen3y " of raising up our voices on behalf of rapine " and murder '?  We have heard, on good authority, that when Dr. THIRLIVALL was appointed to the See of St. David's, an ex-Lord Chancellor promised Lord MELBOURNE that the new bishop should never vote against the Whigs, though he could not pledge him to vote for them when he disapproved of their proceedings. What inference is to be drawn from his absence from the division the other night? That while not less grateful to his patrons, he was somewhat more consistent to his character as a Christian teaoher, than his more Evan• gelical brethren of the Bench ? Let us hope so. But why did not another eminent ecclesiastic attend in his place to deprecate a policy which it is impossible that he should not have condemned in his heart? We do not allude to the Bishop of liapoN. But Dr. JACKSON, of Lincoln, has hitherto borne a high character for honesty and piety. We are loth to believe that he was absent out of courteous compliance to the wishes of the Premier.  It has long been a kind of maxim with the Episcopal Bench not to interfere in general polities, but to support the Government of the day on all questions where the Church was not specially concernel As a general rule, we do not disapprove of this course of conduct. But there arc occasions on which it behoves the Spiritual Peers to be mindful of their high office, and to remember that when the interests of humanity are at stake, and the honour of the Christian faith is imperilled, they are no longer mere assessors of the Minister of the day, but the bearers of a Divine message, and the witnesses to a creed of mercy. That it is then their office boldly to rebuke those to whom they may on ordinary questions behave with deference, and to beware of nothing so much as affording any pretence for people to say that the Anglican hierarchy has abdicated its lofty functions, and grown careless of its sacred origin.