Pusey's two years' suspension from preaching before the university was just terminated, and he had taken Newman's place as head of the tractarian party. Immediately after Wilberforce's formal election by the Christ Church chapter he received a letter from Pusey commenting on the ‘strangeness’ of his having been ‘called to a see which most of all requires supernatural gifts,’ and going no further in the way of congratulation than to mention that God's providence had been shown in the freedom of Oxford from such a bishop ‘as some with which we had been threatened’ (Life of S. Wilberforce, i. 300). The presence in the diocese of a subordinate so much inclined to mutiny—a subordinate, too, whose least word or deed was certain at that time of receiving the attention of the public—rendered the bishop's position exceptionally difficult. Moreover, the diocese itself was utterly unorganised. It had lately been completed by the addition of the county of Bucks to those of Berks and Oxford, of which it consisted in Bishop Bagot's time, and the income was so small that a heavy grant was at first required from the ecclesiastical commissioners to make it up to 5,000l. a year. But Wilberforce contrived to dispel all difficulties. Pusey was so dealt with that, although the bishop privately inhibited him for two years from all ministrations in the diocese (except at Pusey in Berkshire), he yet succeeded in gaining his confidence, and in the end Pusey declared that he had received more support from Wilberforce than from any other bishop on the bench (Liddon, Life of Pusey, iv. 258). In other diocesan matters he worked a change which was almost a revolution. Besides transforming the old methods of confirmation and ordination, and introducing the system of lenten missions, he compelled the rural deans to assemble their clergy in regular chapters, and themselves to meet regularly under his own presidency. He established diocesan societies for the building of churches, the augmentation of benefices, the provision of additional clergy, and the education of the poor; supervised with much jealous care the establishment of some of the earliest protestant sisterhoods; and himself founded colleges for the training of theological students at Cuddesdon, and of national schoolmasters at Culham. Added to this, he was for some time chaplain to the House of Lords, lord high almoner to the queen (1847–69), and at all times an indefatigable preacher and collector for the principal missionary bodies, as well as a conspicuous figure in general society. Some idea of the extent of his activity in diocesan work may be formed from the fact that the total amount expended in the diocese during his episcopate on ‘churches, endowments, schools, houses of mercy, and parsonage-houses’ was upwards of two million pounds (see Eighth Charge to the Clergy, &c.)
Wilberforce's influence, however, extended far beyond his own diocese. The year of his elevation to the see was one in which several great questions affecting both church and state came before the House of Lords, and in the debates which followed Wilberforce made his mark as a debater. ‘I think the house will be very much afraid of you,’ was the comment of the prince consort's secretary after hearing the bishop's speech on the cornlaw bill; and thereafter he was always a power to be reckoned with. Although for the most part he confined himself to ecclesiastical matters, such as the position of the colonial church, the management of episcopal and capitular estates, the law of church buildings, and the controversy which raged over the establishment of the papal hierarchy in England, there were many other subjects in which he took a peculiar interest. Such were the law of charitable trusts, the prevention of cruelty to women and children, the treatment of prisoners, and national education. On all these subjects the House of Lords heard from him an able and eloquent presentation of the church's view of the matter in hand, while his frequent exposition of current business in his diocesan charges did much to instruct the country clergy in affairs of state. But the public act with which he is most identified was the reform of convocation. Since 1717, when the two houses of the Canterbury province entangled themselves in hopeless controversy over Bishop Hoadly's attack on the nonjurors, no license from the crown to debate had been given to them. In 1851 Lord Redesdale mooted the question of reviving the rights of convocation in the House of Lords, with the support of Wilberforce and Bishop Blomfield of London, but he was opposed by the archbishop of Canterbury, John Bird Sumner [q. v.], on the ground that it would only lead to endless discussions. In 1852, when the Gorham judgment [see Gorham, George Cornelius] had given deep offence to the advanced party in the church, Wilberforce resolved on a determined attempt at the revival of the former power of convocation as a synodical body. Convocation met as usual in 1852, expecting to be prorogued as usual after the transaction of merely formal business. But Wilberforce asked that it should petition the crown to be heard upon the clergy discipline bill then pending,
