“I am strongly in favour of Disestablishment, and always have been.  The connexion between Church and State has done harm to both—­more, however, to the Church.  Take our plan of electing Bishops.  In the early centuries they were elected by the people—­as they ought to be.  Now they are chosen, sometimes by a Tory, sometimes by a Radical Government.  The Dean and Chapter meet and ask the guidance of the Holy Ghost to enable them to choose, knowing all the while they have the ‘Letter Missive’ in their pockets.  To me this comes perilously near blasphemy.”

But let us suppose an extreme case.  Let us imagine a Dean and Chapter so deeply impressed by the unsuitableness of the Crown’s nominee that they refuse to elect him.  Here, again, the law dodges us.  Except as a protest their refusal would have not the slightest effect.  The Crown has nothing to do but issue Letters Patent in favour of its nominee, and he would be as secure of his bishopric as if the Chapter had chosen him with one consent of heart and voice.  True, he would not yet be a Bishop; for the episcopal character can only be conferred by consecration, and at this point the Archbishop becomes responsible.  To him the King signifies the fact that Dr. Proudie has been elected to the See of Barchester, requiring him to “confirm, invest, and consecrate” that divine.  Should the Archbishop refuse compliance with this command, he exposes himself to exactly the same penalties as would be inflicted on a recalcitrant Chapter, only with this aggravation—­that he has more to lose.  When my good friend the Bishop of Oxford addressed the Archbishop of Canterbury, imploring him to withhold consecration from Dr. Henson, he made a valiant and faithful protest against what he holds to be a flagitious action on the part of the Crown; but, knowing the respected occupant of Lambeth as well as he does, I think he must have anticipated the reply which, as a matter of fact, he received.

Such being the absurdities and unrealities which surround the Conge d’Elire, one naturally asks, Why not abolish it?  This question was raised in a pointed form by the late Mr. C. J. Monk, for many years Liberal M.P. for the City of Gloucester, who, in 1880, introduced a Bill to abolish the Conge and to place the appointment of Bishops formally, as it is really, in the hands of the Prime Minister.  He urged the painful sense of unreality which clings to the whole transaction, and the injury to religion which is involved in thus paltering in a double sense with sacred forms and words.  It is amusing to those who can recall the two men to remember that Mr. Monk was opposed by Lord Randolph Churchill, who thought he perceived in the proposal some dark design hostile to the interests of the Established Church; but the important speech was made by Gladstone.  That great man, always greatest in debate when his case was weakest, opposed the abolition of the Conge.  He deprecated any legislation which would interfere