burst asunder-that public judgment, now set free, will exercise its powers in judging for itself, in discovering the truth; therefore, to maintain themselves as they are, they will resolutely oppose any change in the forms of that government by which their supremacy is upheld, lest political reformation might weaken or endanger it. To review the past conduct of parties, turn to the page of history. The Church maintained the despotism of the Louis in France, of Ferdinand in Spain, of Miguel in Portugal; and though, as I am aware, the Clergy of our own country refer with triumphant exultation to the conduct of our Bishops in the time of James 2nd, still, be it remembered, this instance of departure from their usual practice affords the strongest confirmation of the rule; for their support of the executive power was only withdrawn when James had disclosed his purpose of substituting Popery for Protestantism, and therefore their fears were at best of a mixed character, for religious truth and for their civil immunities, for the supremacy of their Church, and for the preservation of their Church Establishment. I need not refer to that period when the rejection of the Reform Bill in another place brought this country to the brink of revolution. The facts of that time and later periods are sufficiently well known to every one here present to enable them to form a correct judgment whether the political power of the Bishops in Parliament has been employed in support of pure and good measures, such as would probably increase the public content and welfare, or whether they have been the mere partizans of their respective political creators. I have trespassed too long on the time of the Houe. It has been my desire to show that the plea of exclusive learning which formerly might have justified the employment of the Clergy in civil government is no longer valid and admissible. I wished to demonstrate how important it is, that example be afforded to the heads of the Church that they should evidence a zeal for the cause of religion; that they should be above suspicion of self-interest, ambition, or worldly gain; that they should be, in conduct as in name, successors of the Apostles. The ministry of the Word afforded sufficient employment for the Apostles, and so it would for their successors; for who can believe, looking to the extent of jurisdiction given to Bishops in this country, that sufficient employment for their time may not be found within their respective dioceses.

I ask you to consider with what grace can you require the village pastor to reside amongst his flock when the spiritual overseer, whose duty it is to watch over hundreds of parishes and hundreds of pastors, is removed far away from the scene of his duties, mixing in the contention of Senates, or moving in the splendor of Courts? I bid you remember, that the placing of political power in the hands of those whose interested leaning must ever be adverse to popular Government, is a practice dangerous to the liberties and welfare of the community. The Church, as a spiritual community, has no concern with secular Government; the Establishment has property, and that being a temporality, should be represented in Parliament, but not by Christian officers, for these are servants of that Lord and master whose kingdom was not of this world, who did not delegate to others a greater power than he himself received from God; they are the stewards of his mysteries, and no employment should take them from their proper business to preserve religion, the immediate purpose of which is to promote purity of worship, the ultimate one, salvation of souls. I call upon all friends of religion seriously to consider this momentous truth, that men too often associate their ideas of religion with the conduct of its teachers their respect for the one is often regulated by their respect for the other-the political conduct of the Bishops in Parliament has lowered their character in the eyes of the community, and whatever tends to create irreverent ideas of religion, diminishes its influence in the human mind. Let the property of the Church be sufficiently represented in Parliament, but make not a high religious office the qualification of a political office; take away the splendor of title, that remnant of a vicious practice, alike insulting and disgraceful to the Christian shepherd-derobe them from this political livery, that it be seen that they accept not the oversight of the flock for filthy lucre or worldly gain, but "of a willing mind." Let the head of the State be supreme over all persons, Civil and Ecclesiastical, merely as citizens, and let no Ecclesiastical ruler enjoy political power by virtue of his office. Thus the Christian Prelate, turning his eyes from every thing political, may rest his hopes and fears upon religion alone-may exert his undivided efforts to maintain (that which alone should concern a Christian Church) its purity and its usefulness. I move for leave to bring

in a Bill "To relieve the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church from their Legislative and Judicial Duties in the House of Peers."

Mr. Gillon rose to second the Motion of his hon. friend, the member for Gateshead. He felt it to be a subject which commanded much of the public attention, and one which it behoved the Legislature to take into their earliest-their most serious consideration. He should not conceive it necessary, in support of the Motion, to go back to very remote periods of history. He would at once admit, that as far as ancient usage or precedent went to establish a rule, that usage was all on the adverse side of the question. In the earliest periods of our history, we find the clergy taking a part in the Legislature of the kingdom, and before Parliaments existed, conferring with, and advising the Princes of the country, and forming a component part of the Councils of the nation. This was easily accounted for in earlier ages, for, besides the great power and wealth which they possessed, and the influence which superstitious men imparted to them, they were, in fact, in these early times, the only educated portion of the community, and the power which they had thus acquired, and which was so acceptable to them, they endeavoured to continue, by perpetuating the ignorance of the people. But he considered antiquity to be no plea, for that which was by experience found to be hurtful, the more cause there was to remove it. He would, however, very briefly notice two periods in our history, which more immediately bore on the point now in view. In the discussions which took place in 1641, on the Bill for restraining Bishops and others from intermeddling in secular affairs, the arguments of those who maintained the rights of the Churchmen to sit in the other House of the Legislature, and of Lord Newark in particular, resolved themselves into three points,-1st, the antiquity of the custom-with that he should not further interfere: 2nd, that it would remove them only for a month or two from their spiritual vocations once in three years: 3rd, that by diminishing the dignity, it would diminish the respect paid to the Church. As to the second point, it was one which could not be brought forward in the present day. The House had been gravely told in the last Session, by the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, of the importance of the superintending care of the Bishops to the well-being of the Church,

so much so, that it was gravely proposed to add to, instead of diminishing, their num bers—a proposition which he hardly expected that House would entertain. But, if these functions were so essential to the well-being of the Church, and to the advancement of religion, the main end, as he ventured to think, of the institution of the order of Bishops, would they not be much more efficiently discharged, were those right reverend Prelates released from an onerous attendance on the business of the Legislature, which must occupy more than a half of their whole time. As long as they continued Members of the Legislature, it was their duty to make themselves acquainted with all matters of State policy-with all the complicated and extended subjects of legislation-a matter in itself enough to absorb the whole man. When we considered at the former time the high importance of the holy office of these reverend Prelates the deep and eternal responsibility entailed upon them-the millions of Christian souls who were to look to them for exhortation and example, instead of adding to their spiritual duties the intolerable load of legislation, he was rather inclined to exclaim, "Who is sufficient for these things?" As to the third point, that by diminishing the dignity of the members of the hierarchy the respect paid to them would be at the same time diminished, he was inclined to believe, that the very reverse of this proposition was the fact. It was this grandeur, which, separating them by a broad line of distinction from the generality of men, and calling their attention from spiritual to worldly affairs, impaired their usefulness, and caused them to be regarded rather with jealousy and suspicion, than with that order and reverence befitting the sacred nature of their office. Did the Apostles of old live in gorgeous palaces? Did they arrogate to themselves the feudal dignities? (for it was as Barons that the Bishops held seats in the other House of the Legislature), or did they intermeddle in State affairs? No! and in all time, in proportion as Churchmen had intermeddled, in proportion as they had mixed the character of teachers of the Word with that of busy intriguers and crafty politicians, had they lost that respect, which the conscientious minister would at all times command. These things might give them cap and courtesy, but they lost them in the consciences of men. He could not here avoid quoting the eloquent words of that noble patriot, Lord Say and Sele, whose memory

' of that Church are concerned. This, we 'well know, is not always the case; and it 'is objected that they can vote on all occa'sions. Where the affairs of the Church require the assistance and sanction of Parliament, can it be doubted that they 'would be received with respect, and treated with favour, by that Parliament, upon a formal representation of the Bishops, rather than by a Parliament, perhaps exasperated by the opposition or advocacy, no matter which, of spiritual 'men, of some public measure, which had 'been the subject of debate amongst men ' of the first-rate talents, with their passions excited by a contest for victory. When I use these arguments, I mean no 'invidious application; the moral, I again say, grows out of the obliquity of human 'affairs. I verily believe, that there are Imany Bishops of sanctified hearts, single' minded, and of just conduct. Yet do I 'think, that all such should be far removed 'from suspicion; and that vanity and arrogance would be imputed to them, were they animated by the zeal of St. Paul, and adorned with the simplicity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and on 'whose gentle bosom he leaned.' The pride, pomp, and circumstances of worldly grandeur, befitted not the followers of a humble and lowly master; a heated and angry debate in the House of Lords accorded but ill with the meekness and charity which should distinguish a Christian minister. The arena of political disputation was no place for the presence of a messenger of peace. He would remove these right reverend Prelates from a scene so unbefitting their presence; from the frivolities of a court, and the temptations of a capital; and would enable them, by devoting themselves to the duties of their sacred calling-by the preaching and practice of Christian charity, to make themselves truly respected and beloved. One point more he would allude to, and he had done. What justice was there, that there should be in one House of the Legislature the representatives of one Church and one sect alone? Why were they to be more favoured than the Established Church of Scotland, or, than the tens of thousands, the millions, who, in every part of the empire, conformed not to the favoured creed? The House might undervalue this argument-the country would duly prize it, and would see, in the presence of those reverend Prelates in the Upper House, a barrier to their acquiring their just rights

and privileges. What course his Majesty's Ministers might adopt in regard to this Motion, he knew not, but it was easy to guess. The measure being carried, which they had looked to as a means of annihilat ing their political rivals, formerly in power; their motto seemed now to be, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." No one measure of efficient and satisfactory Reform had met with their concurrence. The Church and the Aristocracy were take n under their especial protection, while the people, on whose shoulders they were carried into power, were forgotten. But the great tide of truth and justice would roll on, fertilizing as it flowed, and would obliterate even the vestige of the paltry expedients by which temporizing politicians would seek to stop its majestic course.

Lord Althorp was understood to say, that he did not believe that many Gentle men were inclined to support the Motion. If he thought so, he might have been inclined to discuss the question; but, in deference to the strong expression of feeling in the House, he thought he might fairly be excused from entering into any discussion on its merits.

Sir William Ingilby would not occupy their attention for five minutes. He dissented from the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The consequence of not allowing a question of the kind to be discussed in that House, was to make it more eagerly discussed in the country. For his own part, he would rather that question was debated in Parliament than out of Parliament. All questions connected with the Church were most important, more especially a question which involved a charge of sacrificing spiritual duties to political pursuits. Whence arose the great body of Dissenters in this country but from the neglect of the Church? All classes of Dissenters concurred in one common sentiment—that dissent arose from the neglect of the Churchmen. Those who wished well to the Church would think with him, that they had better suffer these discussions to take place within the walls of that House than beyond them.

Mr. Tennyson agreed with the hon. Member that this was a question of infinite importance to this country-a question involving no ordinary results, and which, therefore, ought not to be disposed of in the summary manner which the noble Lord recommended. He agreed with his hon. friend who had just sat down, that this mode of settling the question would create