House of ment has often provoked opposition and remonstrance. from the This has probably arisen, more from feelings to which Lords. 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 1,-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.2 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." Since that time, there have been no adverse 1 16 Car. I. c. 27. 3 26th April, 1836. Ayes, 53; 2 13th March, 1834. Ayes, 58; Noes, 180. Noes, 125. 416th February, 1837. Ayes, 92; Noes, 197. Circumstances favourable to the bishops. Political position of motions in Parliament, and few unfriendly criticisms elsewhere, in relation to the Parliamentary functions of the bishops. Their place in our venerable constitution has hitherto been upheld by every statesman, and by nearly all political parties. At the 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. The various changes in the constitution of the House the House of Lords, which have here been briefly sketched, have considerably affected the political position and influence of that branch of the legislature. 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 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. But however the individual privileges of peers may have been affected by the multiplication of their numbers, it is scarcely to be questioned that the House of Lords has 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 public opinion; while its limited and unpopular constitution would have failed to give it strength to resist the pressure of adverse forces. But the wider and more liberal constitution which it has acquired from increased numbers, and a more representative character, has saved the House of Lords from these political dangers. True to the spirit of an aristocracy, and to its theoretical uses in the state, it has been slower than the House of Commons in receiving popular impressions. It has often checked, for a time, the progressive policy of the age; yet, being accessible And suited to more to the same sympathies and influences as the other House, its tardier convictions have generally been brought, without violence, into harmony with public opinion. And when measures, demanded by the national welfare, have sometimes been injuriously retarded, the great and composite qualities of the House of Lords,the eminence of its numerous members, their talents in debate, and wide local influence,-have made it too powerful to be rudely overborne by popular clamour. Thus the expansive growth of the House of Lords,— popular in concurring with the increased authority of the House of Commons, and the enlarged influence of the press,appears to have been necessary for the safe development of our free institutions, in which the popular element has been continually advancing. The same cause has also tended to render the peers more independent of the influence of the Crown. To that influence they are naturally exposed: but the larger their number, and the more various their interests, the less effectually can it be exercised: while the Crown is no longer able to secure their adherence by grants of land, offices, and pensions. stitutions. The peer in reference to party. These changes in the constitution of the House of age viewed Peers must further be considered in their relations to party. The general object which successive ministers have had in view in creating peers,-apart from the reward of special public services,-has been to favour their own adherents, and strengthen their Parliamentary interest. It follows that the House of Lords has undergone considerable changes, from time to time, in its political composition. This result has been the more remarkable whenever one party has enjoyed power for a great length of time. In such cases the number of creations has sometimes been sufficient to alter the party con balance of parties; or, if this cause alone has not sufficed, it has been aided by political conversions,-the not uncommon fruit of ministerial prosperity. The votes of the bishops have also been usually recorded with that party, to whom they owed their elevation. Hence it was Entire that, on the accession of George III.,-when the domi- change of nation of the great Whig families had lasted for nearly half a century, the House of Lords was mainly Whig. Hence it was that, on the accession of William IV., when the Tory rule- commenced under Lord Bute, strengthened by Lord North, and consolidated by Mr. Pitt-had enjoyed ascendency for even a longer period, the House of Lords was mainly Tory. nections at periods. different this cause of collisions Under such conditions as these, when a ministry, Danger having established a sure majority in the House of Lords, from t is overthrown by an Opposition commanding a majority between of the House of Commons, the two Houses are obviously the Houses. in danger of being brought into collision. A dissolution may suddenly change the political character of the House of Commons, and transfer power from one party to another; but a change in the political character of the House of Lords, may be the work of half a century. In the case of Whig administrations since the Reform Act, the creation of a majority in the Upper House, has been a matter of peculiar difficulty. The natural sympathies of the peerage are conservative; and are strengthened by age, property, and connections. A stanch Whig, raised to the Upper House, is often found a doubting, critical, fastidious partisan,-sometimes an absentee, and not unfrequently an opponent of his own party. No longer responsible to constituents for his votes, and removed from the liberal associations of a popular assembly, he gradually throws off his political allegiance; and if habit, or an affectation of con |