of some respectable saint and patriot--day after day we should have read the verdict, “Died by retention of abuse!” Happily, while we have Exeter Hall, we are spared these national calamities. As I know, grandmother, your natural tenderness for all that concerns the bishops, I must--at the risk of bringing on your cholic--inform you that they are again in danger. Even the _Morning Post_ is beginning to neglect ’em! Some newspaper--I don’t know which--has proposed, as the only true remedy for the distress of the country, that there should be a greater number of bishops. Now this, at the first blush, seems a capital notion. But only mark what follows. The writer would multiply episcopal blessings, by “distributing the revenues of the present sees, as they fall vacant, among a greater number of bishops.” And the _Morning Post_ doesn’t at once put down this infamous proposal. Only imagine the Bishop of London slit into half-a-dozen bishops--one Henry of Exeter made twenty Henrys--just as you make bundles of small wood from one large piece! After giving utterance to this wickedness, the writer goes on to think “it impossible that the spiritual Lords should continue to be members of the Legislature after ceasing to be rich men.” And this the _Post_ calls “no singular opinion. For such is the habitual association of power and station in this country with wealth, that perhaps nine out of every ten persons that one might meet walking along the Strand, would say with this writer that unless a prelate had his thousands a year, and his carriage, and his servants, and his grandeur of accessories, he could not properly take a part in counselling the Government, or assisting to make laws in the Upper House of Parliament!” And if the people think so, I’ve heard it said that the bishops have themselves to thank for such belief, seeing that the world often hears more of their carriages and servants than of the humility and tenderness that were shown by the apostles. The _Post_, however, to my amazement, is for stripping Lambeth and Fulham of much of their finery. Yes: the _Post_ absolutely says: “We protest against the opinion that, without the wealth, the worth of the bishops in the House of Lords would be nought. Nay, we can conceive the possibility of the influence of learning, and eloquence, and venerable earnestness, being _even greater when disassociated_ from wealth and worldly interests!” Only imagine, grandmother, the Bishop of London walking down to the House of Lords leaning on a horn-tipped staff, and not rolled along in his cushioned carriage, with servant in purple livery to let down the steps for him! Isn’t the picture terrible? Isn’t it what they call revolutionary? And yet the _Morning Post_--as coldly as this present month of May--can see the possibility of a Bishop of Exeter being cut into ten or twenty bishoplings, and never swoon, or even as much as call out for the hartshorn! Who is the revolutionist now?