The Express. — London, England, 1848-02-02 00:00:00

it i I The Marquis of Lansdowne arrived in town to attend the council from Windsor Costly. The American Minister had an interview with the Might Hon. T. Milner Gibson yesterday , at the oflloe of the Board of Trade. Mr. Forster, Mr. Gurney and a deputation had an Interview yesterday with Lord John Rummell, &this residence in Cheaham-place. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial ceic• from the Governors of f3outh Australia' and the Mauritius. hes were sent off yesterday evening from theDgrill-oftics for the Governors of the West India eolonies. LETTES.—It is the intention of her Majesty to hold two levees and a drawing-room at St. James's Palace in the course of the present month. TUE EAST INDIA HOUSE. —NEW GOVERNOR OP BOYBAY.—Yesterday a Court of Directors was held at the But India House, when the Right Hon. Viscount Falkland 'n o appoint4d Governor of the Presidency of Bombay. ADDITIONAL MAILS TO The NORTH.—By recent arrangements, a third mail, which will arrive in London at A vs pm., has been established on the London and North- W o o l s line. Similar arrangements have for some time ! seat been in existence on the Brighton and Southampton ham, and it is gratifying to hate to state that the respective companies have m the moat liberal spirit met the endeavours of the Pat-office authorities to give this additional oonve nience to the public, the extra service being performed on these lines without further expense to that department. (From last night's Garotte.) LORD CIIASIBERLAIN'S-OFFICE, FEB. 1, 1848.—The Court will go into mourning to-morrow, the 9rd inst., for his late Majesty Christian VIII. King of Denmark, viz.:—The ladies to wear black silk, fringed or plain linen, white glossa, necklaces and ear-rings, black or white shoes, fans, and tip pets. The gentlemen to wear black, full trimmed, fringed or plain linen, black swords, and buckles.—The Court to Change the mourning on Thursday the 17th inst., viz.:—The ladies to wear black silk or velvet, coloured ribbons fans, and tippets, or plain white, or white and gold, or white and silver stuffs, with black ribbons. The gentlemen to wear black coats, and black or plain white, or white and gold, or white and silver stuff waistcoats, full trimmed, coloured swords and buckles. And, on Thursday the 24th inst., the Court to go oat of mourning. DOWNING-STREET, JAN. 31.—The Queen has f jven orders for the appointment of Major-General Sir . H. Littler, of the Bengal Infantry, Kt., C. 8., to be an Ordinary Member of the Military Division of the First Clan or Knights Grand Cross of the said order.—The Queen hu also appointed Alßadey, Big., to be Surveyor-General for bar Majesty's settlementa in the Falkland islands. FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 31.—The Queen has ap proved of Mr. Ludwig von der l'fordteo, as consul at Malta for his Majesty the King of Hanover. . . _ The DEATIIB IN LONDON during the week ending Saturday last, Jan. 29, were 1,457 ; being 350 above the avenge. The excesaive mortality is shown by the tables of the replistrusel chiefly to arise from typhus, measles, small. poi, influenza, and inflammation of the lungs and air - tubes. It should be remarked, however, that as compared with the deaths of the previous month of December the mortality from influenza has very greatly diminished—the number of fatal cues during the'past week being only 56; whilst during the week ending December 11, the deaths from influenza were upwards of fifty a day. The births during last week were 1,346, or 111 less than the deaths. NEWSPAPERS CAN BE LEGALLY LENT ON HIRE —ln the case of " Miller v. Champion," reported in this paper on Thursday last, and headed, " Newspapers cannot be legally lent on hire," it was decided by Mr. Damns, at the Blooms bury County Court, that newspapers could not be lent on hire. This decision, we learn, from a competent legal authority, is erroneous. There is no law against lending newspapers for hire. There was formerly an act (29 Geo. 111., c. 50, 1798) which prohibited it under a penalty of U.; but that act was repealed by the present Newspaper Act, 6 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76, and the provision has not been re enacted. Indeed, for many years previously to the repeal the enactment had, w far as the Stamp-office was concerned, become a dead letter, it having been ascertained that the practice of letting out newspapers tended to promote the sale cif them. THE ACCIDENT ON THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY.—THE INQUEST. The coroner's jury re-assembled yesterday morning at the Railway-tavern, Waking, and resumed their invesu gation as to toff cause of the death of David Markland, the victim of the collision on the 14th ult.—After the names of the jury had been called over, the coroner (Mr. Woods) in formed the jury that since their last meeting he had applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to issue his order fir the presence of the two men to whose neg ligence the accident was charged, and who were in custody ca remand from the Lambeth Police-court. The answer he bad received he would read to the jury. It was as follows : Whitehall, Jan. 27.-81 r, lam directed by Secretary Sir George Grey be selowarledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th inst., and to Inform you that be Ma not the power of keying an order on the rater for Winging before you as osroner the two prisoners to whom you refer, to be examined as winsome on the inquest now pending: rice does the magistrate who committed the pethamere poems that power. Sir George Grey would be moat ready to amid you by all mesas in hie power with a view to promote the inquirywhlch you are sow carrying on, and regreta he cannot moist on the present onni elen,—l am, air, your obedient servant, J. H. Puthum.—C. J. Woods, county cowers, Gollaiming. It appeared from this that it had been understood at the Home-office that his application had been for the attendance of the parties charged as witnesses, whereas it was rather that they might be present to hear the evidence against them, and to offer such explanations as they might desire to advance respecting their conduct. After this reply, the only course remaining open to ensure the attendance of the accused would be an application to the Court of Queen's Bench, but such an application would come with more propriety and with greater chance of SUOMI from the prisoners themselves, therefore he had not re sorted to it. He bad, however, felt it to be his duty to write to Mr. Keene, the governor of Flores monger Gaol, to give information to the two men, Jones and Fleming, of the adjournment of the inquest, in order that it might be ascertained whether they wished to be present or not, and from him he had learned—what the jury no doubt already knew—that Jones, the engine -driver, had been admitted to hail, and that Fleming, to whom he had communicated the contents of his (the coroner's) letter, de sired him to state that he was desirous of being present. Under theme circumstances it was for the jury to say what alone should be pursued. With regard to Jones, who was at liberty, he was not aware whether he would be present met Mr. Wolff, a solicitor, said that he was acting profession. ally for Jones and Fleming, and was there present to watch the proceedings on their part. He had thought it his duty —looking at the interest of his clients only, and without in tending any disrespect to the advisecourt—to that Jones should not be present.—The Coroner inquired whether Mr. Wolff desired to put any question to any of the witnesses who had been previously examined I—Mr. Wolff thought, in justice to the accused, he should have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses whose evidence had already been given. He wished, however, to say that he had advised Jones not to attend. The Coroner then read a certificate from the hospital to the effect that Fortescue, the guard, was still in a very pre carious condition, and was not likely to be sufficiently reco vered to attend the inquest for some time. Calvert, the fireman, was also not yet able to be present. He aloe read a communication front Mrs. Markland, the widow of the man who was kilted, stattng that the person (Mr. Towne) who at the previous meeting of the jury had stated that he attended to watch the proceedings on her behalf, had done so without her authority or knowledge. Seeing that Fleming had ex pressed his desire to be present, and that it was proper that both he and Jones should have the opportunity of hearing the evidence against them, he should propose, after taking some further evidence, that the inquiry should be further adjourned. The Foreman pretested against a further adjournment. He could see no use is it, seeing that the solicitor for the accusdd had declared that he should advise them not to attend. The Coroner observed that as many of the witnesses who hal been previously examined were not present, it would be necessary, as a matter of justice, to enable Mr. Wolff to ex amine those witnesses, that the inquiry should be again ad warned. The Foreman said the inquest had been adjourned from the previous occasion solely for the purpose of giving tke ac cused parties en opoortunit, of attending. They were now told by the solicitor that they would not attend, or that he weald advise them net to attend. Ile could see, therefore, no use in a further postponement. Mr. Dalrymple, the company's solicitor, asked if Mr. Wolff could stet* positively that Jones would not attend if the inquest was adjourned ?—Mr. Wolff could say positively that neither Jones nor Fleming, supposing the latter should be liberated, would attend the inquest. The Coroner then intimated that he would recall such of the witnesses who had been previously examined to whom Mr. Wolff wished to put any questions, and handed to Mr. Wolff the depositions which had been taken at the two pre vious examinations. Wm. Rudd was then called and examined by the Coroner. Re deposed as follows : I am a brakeman in the employ ment of the South Western Railway Company. I was with the goods train which left Southampton at ten minutes past 4 p.m. on Friday, the 14th of January. Our train stopped at the Winchlield station to allow the 6 p.m. pusenger-train to pus us. We go on direct from the Winchfield station after the passenger train passes us. Thomas Fortescue, the guard, and myself were in charge of the goods train. Jones wee the driver, and Fleming was the firemen. Oar train consisted of 31 carriages and trucks, besides the engine. I was in the 29th carriage. I was riding inside the carriage, which was a second-clam carriage. We attached two car- Tinges to our train at Farnborough. The guard's box, which is a waggon covered over next the tender, was occupied by , Fortescue. Our train stopped at Farnborough ten minutes, I was not aware of any danger until the accident took Place. The first intimation was the whistle, which I heard at the Purbright embankment, about five or six miles from the Farnborough station : that was the whistle of our own engine. I then looked out, and saw a red light, which I be lieved to be our own side light, but I am not sure that it was. The collision took place very shortly after that. There was no brake to the carriage I was in, or I should have ap plied it on hearing the whistle. If I could find • carriage near the end of the train in which there is a brake, that should be my place; but it is my duty to ride as near the end of the train as possible. I afterwards found that there was a first-clam brake carriage attached at Farn borough, but I did not know it was a brake carriage until after the accident. That carriage was behind the second class carriage in which I rode. I received • knock ott the head from the side of the carriage when t h e oollkdon took place. The next thing I heard wee Mr. Ward's shout. I imagine from Mr. Ward's statement to me I that that must have been after the collision. I will not un dertake to say positively whether it wu before or after. I went with Mr. Ward to the front of the train, and saw the nature of the accident. I then suggested that I should go back to stop any other train that might be coming. I did stop another goods train at about a mile and a halt's dis tance from the accident. That train would have been due at Woking at about eleven o'clock. I stowid till that train came up. I did not go back as far as the Farnborough station. I saw Jones and Fleming getting off the engine after tha accident.—Bp the Foreman : How many hours a day do you travel as brakeeman t—Twelve to fourteen, sometimes sixteen ; but it depends on how we keep time. There is no elevated box for the guards on luggage trains. We cannot see without getting out of the carriage. We cannot apply the brake without getting out. (The witness explained from a drawing of an engine which wu exhibited by Mr. Wolff that to ap ply the brake the guard or brakesman had to get out of the truck in which he rode and to walk along a narrow plat form about as wide as a man's hand to the end of the car riage, and then stand on the buffer and press down the brake with the foot.) There was a handle to hold by at the end of the truck. The width of the platform wu not more than 2 1.12 inches.— The Fovenuin expressed his opinion that such an arrange ment was most defective and hazardous W the life of the _ _ or brakeeman.—Cross--examined by Mr. Wolff: V;:t ra have to press on the brake our full weight while the train is going at full speed, and they when ia sufficiently depressed to stoop down and put in • pin to keep it down.—By the Foreman : It is no doubt a danger ous practice, but we have not time to think of danger.—By the Coroner : Had I been aware that there was such a car riage in the train I should have been in the next attached to the firatclus brake carriage, where I could have applied the brake without any risk. There are not brakes attached to all &steles' carriages. It was dusk at Farn borough when the brake carriege was attached, and I was then in the second-clue carriage and did not again get down till the accident had occurred. My duty is to attend to the lamps, and see to the attaching and detaching of the waggons at the statior.e--By Mr. Wolff: We have sometimes two brakes on the luggage train. I do not know whether there should have been two brake carriages to our train on the night in question. I should imagine there should. There was a broke on the tender. The brake next the tender was under the control of Fortescue. I believe it was in proper order. I could see nothing of the passenger train until immediately before the collision. We left Southampton at about 4 o'clock, and arrived at Farnborough at about 8. At Frimley cutting there is • curve, and the drivers are required to go round Ili with care. There is a wall there ; there is also a gradient falling this way. I cannot say how far a train could be seen on that night. There was a mist in patches, and when we got near, the canal, near which the accident occurred, there was a Tog. The fog was sufficient to obscure light in some degree. Our train was a little behind time, and we were going middling quick while in the cutting. I Mt a sort of rebuff shortly after leaving the cutting as if the engine was reversed. The night was a damp one, and dm rails were slippery. It is more difficult to stop a Main when the rails are wet than when they are dry. If I had had a brake at my command and applied it, it might have asehted in stopping the train. I am not aware that Mesmemith and Jones appeared on bad terms that night. I Nome undertake to say whether the steam was on the e train at the time of the collision. Heard no deto liguals previous to the collision. Saw no fog signals bat e one I let off when I went back. I was provided with detonating signals, and our directions are, in case of eeddent, to go hack 6N yards and then place a detonating signal on the rail, and others at distances of 100 yards apart. - - By the Coroner : The mist in some places was sufficient to make a light look dim. The windows of the carriage I Ms in were closed, except the one I sat by. The rails were in a slippery state. After the accident same sand was ron the ride prevent the waggons running down l a neline, to after the engine was detached from the train. — By ajuror : When I had gone back a mile and a half to seep the next train, I could see the light of my own train. There was one place at which I could not see the tail light. —By Mr. Dalrymple: Before I came to Farnborough I was tiding in the road box. There was no inside Innate to the teaks in that box. As the guard and brekesman are re- Lifedto ride in the road box, the fireman and ,!river should t) a good look out. The tender brake is the principal; the other brakes are merely subordinate, and one intended merely to stop the waggons at the stations. Mr. Dalrymple stated that brakes of an improved con struction and elevated seats for the guards were b, ing ap plied to the road boxes, as suggested by the jury at the last examination, The brakes would in future all been constructed so as to work from the inside of the road boxes. The Foreman stated that he had asked the question as to the number of hours the guards were employed, because he had heard they were sometimes worked as many as 24 hours without any rest. In reply to questions put by the Coroner, the witness stated that, on tee Thursday night before the accident. be left London at 12 o'clock in charge of a down train, and arrived in Southampton at 6 o'clock in the morning. His duty then ceased until about 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon. Had no accident occurred, he should have arrived in London at about 10 o'clock, and should not have been called upon to go out with another train until 10 o'clock on the following night. Mr. Henry Eutman, timekeeper at Southampton, spoke to the time at which the trains left Southampton on Friday, 14th January, and the permits who were in charge of them. It was his duty to see that the enginemen and firemen wore sober before leaving. The driver and fireman of the 6 P.M. passenger train were perfectly sober when they left South ampten, as were Jones and Fleming, who had charge of the luggage train. Jones had always appeared a steady, sober, and well conducted man. Mr. Dalrymple observed that Jones, as far as the company was concerned, enjoyed the character of being one of their best and steadiest drivers. Wm. Jenard, a porter at the Farnborough station, doeed that Jones and Fleming appeared to him to be perfectly so ber when they stopped at the Farnborough station. Mr. Thos. J. Miller, station clerk at Woking, saw Jones and Fleming at shout 2 o'clock in the morning after the ac cident. They were then sober. Wm. Locke, a labourer in the employ of the company, who was a passenger by the train which was run Into, de posed to the circumstances of the accident and the sending back of the guard to warn the approaching train. Cross-examined by Mr. Wolff.—The passenger train had been stopping perhaps a quarter of an hour before I heard that Brownsmith had been sent back to warn the coming train. When the whistle was heard, the goods train was from 300 to 400 yards from the passenger tram. The rails were wet and slippery. Thos. Stevens, a gas-fitter employed by the company, con firmed this witness's evidence. Mr. Gooch, recalled at the request of and examined by Mr. Wolff : I have myself driven an engine under circum stances as to weather, gradients, weight, and breaks, similar to those of the luggage train in question, and can speak from my own experience that it might be stopped within 600 yards.—By Mr. Dalrymple : The tender brake is the prin cipal brake, and that on which the reliance is placed.—By Mr. Wolff : If no signal was given or seen by the driver. A. consultation here took place between the coroner and jury (strangers being excluded) as to the further adjourn ment of the inquiry, the result of which was, that after the examination of the next witness, the inquest should be ad journed to a future day. Samuel Brownsmith, the under-guard of the passenger Vain, and who had been sent back to signal the luggage Main, was the next witness called, and after being told by the Coroner that he might refuse to give evidence if he pleased, and that any questions he might object to answer would not be premed, while any evidence he might give might be eh rwards used against him, deposed as &noes On the 14th January I was acting as under-guard to the 5.30 p.m. passenger train from Gosport. We joined the 6 p.m. passenger train from Southampton at Bishopateke. We passed the luggage train at Winchfield. We arrived at the Furbright embankment before anything particular occurred. At about five or six miles from the Farn borough station I perceived the engine-driver had shut off his steam. I applied the brake, arid the train was stopped. It then wanted one minute to eight. I passed along the side of the train to the engine. Mark land told me the repairing of the engine would occupy four or five minute. I knew that the goods train world be soon due, and suggested to Whiting, the head guard, that I should go back and signal it. He concurred, and I went back. The train had stopped about four or fire minutes be fore I went back.—By the Coroner: The usual signal in such • case is the red light, which I used. The guards are each furnished with a book of rules for their guidance. I know the rules 13 and 47 perfectly well. I considered that under the circumstances we were placed in that night the red light would be sufficient. I had with me some of the fog signals, which are carried in the van in a basket. I consider the fog signals are for use in foggy weather, or in deep cuttings, where the red light would not be eerily seen. The Coroner then read the 13th rule, which requires that in the event of an accident the under-guard is to go back 600 yards with the danger signal, shown to stop any coming train, and there remain until the line is again clear and un obstructed. (Here the witness remarked there was a full stop Whenever it is to do this he shall place on the r at of the coming train detonating fog signals at dis tances not greater than 100 yards apart to the point specified, and in foggy weather he shall also turn, on the approach of the train, the fog signal light. Examination resumed: I always considered that, with regard to the fog signals, there was • discretion left with me as to the circumstances under which they should be used ; and I did not think that, tinder the cirmunelenees as they existed en the night in question, it was neouurry for me to nse them. I considered it to be my duty to p look EOO yards with the red signal light. The de if I used them, I should consider it nn ecessary i" MVllN at a distance of 600 yards, and then go oa and plasm ethos at the distance stated. As I expected to be re tailed to my own train every minute, I did not think it right to go back to Farnborough. The head guard did not give me any specific instructions ea to what I should do, whether I was to use the fog-signals or not. I believe the gettersl interpretation of the rule Is, that there is a discretion with the guards as to the use of the de tonating signals. On the night in question I thought the red light would be sufficient. We were on a high embenke meat about three miles in length from which a light MOM have been seen at a distance o three miles. The night wen clear. The moon was not visible. I did not perceive the slightest log or mist. I should say I went back half a sib with the signal light. I remained there about five minutes before I saw any appearance of the coming train. From the time of the first stoppage until I saw the coming train must have been full 20 minutes. I heard the train coming through the mating Ware I saw it. I first maw the white light of the train as it emrged from the • salting. The man was them almat 24 flea him am I looked back towards the passenger train. and could the timidly see the red lights attached to it. The moment I saw the white light of the coming train I held up my red light u the signal of danger. There are three lights to my lamp, red, green, and white. The green denotes caution, and the red danger. It was the red I exhibited. I waved the light backwards and forwards. The train came up without stop pimg and passed me. The steam was not then shut off, nor had the train slackened its speed. I should say it was tra velling at about 20 miles an hour. I could see unperson on the engine. I think the light from my lamp would have enabled me to distinguish any persons there had they been in erect positions. Had they been stooping I might not have observed them. I looked particularly if I could see ai y one on the engine, finding the train did not stop, but I could not. I did not see either guard or brakeman, or any one at any part of the train. As I came running back, when the luggage train had passed me, I saw a man stand ing on the engine in en elevated position, who appeared to be in the act of reversing the engine. This was after I had heard the shouting to atop the train. I went back to my own train, and found the collision had taken elate. I have never been instructed ea to the meaning of the rules. lam sometimes in charge of a train myself. Before I was ap pointed ! was instructed in my duty by other guards, with whom I travelled up and down the lino. I have been in the company's service seven years, two years as a guard. I have I never had occasion to use the detonating signals nor have I known an instance in which they have been Used to stop a train under circumstances similar to those of this eoci dent.—B the Foreman : I believe it is generally understood that 1 did my duty on the occasion. If this accident had not occurred I should not now, under ordinary circumstaaces, use those signals for the purpose of stopping a train.—By ' the Coroner I shouted as the train approached me besides exhibiting my red light. lam sure it was not the white or green light I exhibited. The rails were very wet at the time of the accident. I was present when Mr. Ward was talking to Jones. He said he had not seen my light, and that he had only seen one light at she back of the passenger train, which was burning very dimly.—By Mr. Dalrymple : I did not know Jones before this occasion, and there was no animosity or ill-feeling between us. The :ode of signals which we now have was issued only about a month since. in the previous rules there was, I believe, no mention of the fog signals. The fog signals themselves were issued about twelve months since. Mr. Stavin, in answer to the Coroner, stated that, in respect to the instructions by means of flag s and 'Urania, they were the same in the new ea the old rules. The fug signals, which were a new invention, had been added as an auxi liary to the usual signals. Witness cross-examined by Mr. Wolff: I was placed in custody by the company in respect to this matter. I did not see any fog or mist in the Frimley cutting on the night in question. The words in the 13th rule, " Whenever it is necessary to do this he shall place on the rail of the coming train detonating log signals, at distances not greater than 100 yards apart, to the point specified, and in foggy weather he shall also turn, on the spproacti of the train, the fog signal light," I consider leave me a dim:el:lon. It is not, in my °Vi i ir'flp;r:i ti vee.eronkrinzow e guard, th u e nct i t g • ss i tteciTt M r: stsnces, exercise discretion or do other than implicitly obey the rules ?—Witness : I have never known a ease in winch those signals have been used. The rapidity with which the luggage train passed me might have prevented my seeing persons on the engine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time I signalled the luggage train before it me, and ten minutes perhaps before the collision. he witness was further cress-examined at considerable ' length, but his evident* in chief remained unshaken. By Mr. Dalrymple: I did not go further back than the distance I have stated, because from what Marklend stated, I expected to be recalled to pro. seed en with my own train. Thos. Smalley, the guard of the next luggage train to that which caused the accident, proved that he saw distinctly the red danger lights of the disabled train at a distance of two miles. He could distinguish that the fights were those of a passenger train. There was a little mist near the water, but the atmosphere was clear on the embankment. The inquest was then adjourned until Tuesday, the 15th inst., at two o'clock. THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 2, 1848. IRELAND. DMILIN, FRB. 1. RESVINATION OF MR. D. O'CONNELL.—It was stated at the Repeal Association on Monday that Mr. D. O'Connell intends to resign the representation of Waterford. His pecuniary circumstances (it is said) do not permit him to continue in parliament. MURDEII BY • YOUTH OP SIXTEEN.—The Cork paper received to-day contains the following :—Murder near Donereile.—An inquest was held on Thursday last at Doneraile, on the body of Johanna Murphy, a widow. It appeared in evidence that Richard Ryal of S treambill, who is only about 16 years old, called on Benjamin Penn, a pen sioner in Doneraile, on last Monday morning to any he could give information against the persona who stole Mr. White's cows, and asked his advice as to what he should do. Penn advised him to report the matter to Mr. White; he said be would, and left the house to go there. Ryal called on Penn on the Wed nesday after, and told him that he saw his father murder the widow Murphy, on Monday, by striking her en the head with a shovel, and that he afterwards rummaged the house, and gotbut 7d., and that if his father was searched the key of the padlock on the widow's door would be found in his boot. Upon Penn's saying he would not believe him, in consequence of his having told so many lies about the stealing Mr White's cow, he replied, if you doubt me go up and you will see her sitting dead on a chair. Penn reported the matter to head constable Bentley, to whom Ryal gave the same amount. Both then proceeded to the widow's house, and found the door locked with a padlock. They broke the staple, and on entering the house found her dead in the position described by Ryal, and a gardener's spade, together w ith a billhook, near her. There were several wounds on the forehead and face. Bentley suspecting that Ryal was the guilty party afterwards searched him and found the key of the padlock in his pocket.—Catherine Collins examined; I Proved that, on her way to Contrails, about 1 o'clock on Monday, she went into the widow's house for a drink at water; the prisoner (wham she identified, and never saw before) and the widow were the only persons in the house at the time.—Patrick Ryal, a boy about 9 years old, de posed that, about 9 o'clock is the morning of the day of the murder, he saw his brother, the prisoner, put • bill-hook (which belonged to his father) into his breeches Pocket, and cover the handle of it with his coat. Did not see him after until late in the evening of that day, when he banded witness 7d. to buy meat. His brother bad no employment, nor any way of getting money. He did not see the bill-hook after until he saw it in the police barrack.—Norry Ryal, a sister of the prisoner, corro borated the evidence of the last witness—Ellen Shanahan, Mr. White's lodge-keeper, examined, stated that the pri soner, on last Tuesday week, came into the lodge-house, which is next to the widow Murphy's, and acted her if there was any person living in the house with the widow. She said not, but that persons were sometimes with her at night.—Doctor Reardon, being examined, stated that the injuries inflicted on deceased were the cause of her death. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against Richard Ryal, who has been transmitted to the county gaol, and the father, who was in custody, was discharged.—The only mo tive that could be assigned for committing the murder was to get possession of some money which it was reported de ceased got from her daughter, who is is America. It ap peared that the prisoner, having been supported m a mown witness, prosecuted persons to conviction about a year ago fee stealing milch cows, for which he got a large reward, and it is supposed he was induced by a similar hope to prefer unfounded charges in this ease. CLERICAL. PREFERXENTS.—Rev. E. F. Boyle to Whaddon R. Wilts, dio. Salisbury ; 1591. ; pat., W. .1. Long, Esq. : vice Rey. E. .1. Walmetley, dec.—Rev. Buck to the under mastership of Blundell's School, Tiverton.—Rev. E. W. Darling to St. Michael Royal to. St. Martin Vintry R., Lon don ; 2421. ; pats., the D. and C. of Canterbury and the Bilhop of Worcester, alt.: vice Rev. G. F. L. Nicolay, dec. —Rev. E. C. Freeman to Houghton-le-Spring C., co. and dio. Durham.—Rev. W. C. Gibbs to Crosby Ravestsworth V., Westmorland, dio. Carlisle ; 1501., with residence ; pat., Hon. F. G. Howard.—Rev. T. W. Johns to Pennington P. C., Lanouldre, dio. Manchester ; 1411. ; pat., the Duchy ot Lancaster .— Rev. C. Lucas to Filby R., Norfolk, dio. Norwich ; 5051. ; pat., C. Lucas, Evq.—Rev. J. Willi, jun., to South Perrot R Mosterton C., Dorset, dio. 13alis bury ; 3621., with residence ; pat., Rev. J. Wills, sea., who has resigned.— Rev. R. Butler, Vicar of Trim, has been ap pointed-I.y the Bishop of Meath to the deanery of Clonmee noise.—Rev. M. Terry to Wick Rissington C., co. and dio. Gloucester; 100/., and residence.—Rev. W. W. Wait to Holy Trinity C., Tewlcesbug, co. and dio. Gloucester; 1001. VACLNCl6s.—Halliwell P . 0., Lancashire ; dio. Man cluster ; pas., trustees ; Rev. W. C. Gibbs promoted. —Hawton R., Notts. • dio. Lincoln ; 8511., with residence ; pat., Rev. 'P. Parker ; R ev. W. Helps dee. Leiceeter Borough Gaol, Chaplaincy of ; Rev. G. Barker dec.—Newbold Patsy V., Warwickakire ; dio. Worcester; 6391., with residenee ; pat e ., Queens' Coll., Oxford ; Rev. J. Golding dos. —Rockhampton R., 2491., with residence, pat., PAT. W. Tuffnell ; Stone P.C., 801., with residence, pats., the Vicar of Berkeley and Deanery Rural of Dureley, co. and dio. Gloaeaster, all vacant by the death of Rev. W. Davies.—St. Andrew R., 3981., with resi dence, pat., the Lord Chancellor; and St. Lythan's V. 1991., with residence, pat., the Archdeacon of Liandaff, both vacant by the death of Rev. B. W. Richards—The. 'Merton P.C. Rent ; arehdio. Canterbury 621. ; pat., the Archbishop Canterbury ; Rey. R. W. Darling prom. NAVAL. PORTVIOCTS, Fen. L—The Rajah of Sarawak arrived at the George Hotel last evening, end ham this day embarked on board the Meander, 44, the Hon. Capt. H. Heppe), which ' frigate will sail this evening for the Bait Indies. The Stromboli, it., Lord Beanclare, will leave Bpitbead morrow with despatches and storm for the squadron at Lis bon. Having fulfilled them the Stromboli im ordered to return to Spithead.— e Firefly, it., Lieut Pon sonby, was inspected and paid advance this day, and will sail to-morrow for Madeira and the coast of Africa —The Kite, st-tug, was to have sailed to-day for service at Bermuda, but cannot be of out of the brain until to-morrow when she will sail.—The - Powerful will be taken into the basin on Thurs. day.—The Illustrious was commissioned this day, Capt. Yates, and has been ordered a complement of 386 inan.—The Fairy, tender to the royal yacht, will proceed to Woolwich early next month to bare new boilers fitted, those now in use being quite unserviceable. ADME•LIT, Faa. I.—Arrournmurra.- Tarter T. Cleave, to be secretary to Rear-Admiral !decks.; L . Chat flald,to usistant-amter shipwrigir to Vfmari • a Doefi i SPORTING. C manna CrP.—ln addition to those published yesterday, °mud= and Brandy fete have paid. Lsmsttxorox STIRPLE Cnaissa.--Lsamtitorow, Cris- DAT NIGHT. —The steeple chimes have been . pin postponed till tantorrow (Wednesday), when, if the frost contiones, they will be further postponed to Friday and Saturday next. LAW Enttittetna. EQUITY COURTS. Before Fine-Cdancellor Knight Bross RIALTN V. WINDSOR, STAINES, AND DOUTR- 'STERN RAILWAT COMPANY.—INJUNCTION DISIOLTED.—II may be remembered that the plaintiff in this case obtained an injunction ex parte to restrain the defendants from entering upon his land without payment of a sum of 50W., which had been agreed to be paid to him for purchase money, and for severance.—Mr. Wicks as, on behalf of the company, now stated that the entry on the land, on account of which the injunction had been granted, had taken place owing to • mistake in the plans, upon which the piece of land entered upon was ascribed to a different proprietor. The company had now paid the 5001. and all matters had been arranged and the present application was to have the bill dismisaeti and the Injunction dissolved.—Mr. Russell and Mr. Smythe, on behalf of the plaintiff, consented, and the order was made accordingly. Ex PARTE RUETER O. EVANB.—PURCEASE BT AS SIGNEE OP PART OF BANKRUPT'S PEOPERTT.—The bank rupt was entitled under • settlement to • reversionary in terest in the event of his surviving his wife, but subject to his maintaining the family. The creditors' assignee was one of the trustees, and in that capacity now sought leave to purchase the bankrupt's contingent interest for 71.11. The official assignee concurred in the petition, which was sup ported by affidavits so to the value of the interest —Mr. Smile, in support of the petition, said that the commissioner had conaidered and approved of the purchase, but thought he had no jurisdiction to confirm it. —The Vice-Chancellor said it was clearly a property which it would be worth no one else's while to buy, and directed the purchase to be completed. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. THE BISHOP OP HEREFORD.—JUDGMENT. Before Lord Denman, Mr. Justice Patteaon, Mr. Justice Coleridr, and Mr. Justice Erie. [The decision of Mr. Justice Erie and of Mr. Justice Cole ridge appeared yesterday in our entire impression, but the following only in • second edition.] TRH QUEEN O. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,— JUDOUENT.—MT. Justice Patteson did not propose to enter into a full examination of the canon and statute law that had been cited by counsel during the course of theargument. The quotations had established, in the most satisfactory manner, the fact, that in all christian countries. and in England also, previous to the statute 25 Henry VIII. the bishop elect whether chosen by the people, or by the people and clergy, or by the cathedral clergy, required to be confirmed in his new office, in order that the election should be per • fected i •and moreover it was clear that the act of con firmation was a judicial and not a ministerial proceed ing. Coming after, and by way of review of, the elec tion of the bishop, it could not be raid to be a part of that proceeding, and moreover it was • most nem sary act, as corroborating • popular election, and rendered the more so when the choice of a bishop was restricted to a smaller body, for all were interested in preventing the mischief that must ensue if an improper person were in stalled in the office el a bishop. It was for that reason per eons were cited to appear, both generally and specially, if they had anything to urge against the confirmation of the bishop elect, and such citation had been resorted to in the present case. It was sufficient, therefore, for him to say that before the statute 25th of Henry VIII. was pissed, he was of opinion the bishop elect must be confirmed, either by the Pope or by the spiritual persons indicated by him for such purpose. There were several iastanoes recorded in the books wherein the archbishop had refused the rite of confirmation ; and Walton's "Anglia Sacra " had preserved many such cases, wherein the elec tions of bishops had, in consequence of this refusal, been an nulled. All these cases, however, were prior to the statute of Henry VIII., and all anterior elections were free of the royal authority, though proceeding under a conge The crown used to influence the election of a bishop by re commendation, but exercised no direct power, nor was any statute in existence giving such power to the King. There fore no interference with the prerogative was offered by de laying or refusing confirmation. The cases which were preserved in the books, and which had been cited, showed that during the period to which he referred, confirmation was an essential towards constituting • bishop, as, without it, he could not assume has office, for the denial of that rite had constituted a tOS , OII for ancel ling election. Taking it therefore to be esta blished by the authorities cited that, prior to the statute 25 Henry VIII., the rite of confirmation was essentisl, he now would proceed to look at that act with • view to ascertain how it operated in respect to rendering confirma tion a mere ministerial act, which might be dispensed with The archbishop was required to confirm, but not without inquiry. The statute was silent on that point. He appre hended there could be no doubt but that it was intended the election should be free,nnd the consecration as of old times accustomed, and consequently a judicial ace It was con tended that confirmation was not a mere form. It was pro vided that, in case of the refusal of the dean and chapter to elect, the archbishop should pro ceed at once to invest and consecrate. In such case no mention whatever was made of confirmation. The legisla ture seemed to consider confirmation unnecessary when there had been no election. In the Irish act abolishing elections, even the form of them, no mention was made of confirma tion, from beginning to end ; hence it was contended that as, where the crown appointed by letters patent, confirmation was not meant to be a judicial act, neither was it so intended in the case of a pretended election by the dean and chapter; but that the form of election having been =, so had that of confirmation, and that neither was m be more than a shadow. It was difficult to say why confirmation should be necessary in the case of cengi ear*, and not in that of appointment by letters patent. It would be vain to guess the meaning of the legislature in the framing of the statute, and therefore he did not attempt to account for the provision. Conceding even that election end confirmation were mere shadows, he could not bring himself to believe that the legislature intended the &stoma act of consecration to be a mere form and shadow, and, if not, neither could be confrmation. In consecration, it was stated that no previous form of inquiry had been used. He could not believe that the legislature ever intended to force the archbishop to perform the solemn act of consecration in the face of sufficient and lawful impediments. The statute provided that, on receipt of letters patent from the crown, the archbishop should consecrate, iadepen dent of any influence from Rome, and the confir mation and consecration contemplated by the statute seemed to be such as had formerly required the sanction of bulls from Rome. It could not be doubted that the bull would have directed a judicial act, and therefore he was compelled to believe either that the legislature intended to carry on the form and shadow of election, or they meant confirma tion to continue a judicial act, es it had been before the pase ing of the statute. He could not feel himself justified in attributing to the legislature the enactment of a mere form and shadow, and therefore he felt bound to accept the words of the act according to their usually received and accepted meaning, when by so doing there was no absurdity involved. It teemed therefore to him that the archbishop was required by the 6th sect. of the act, to confirm the election es "of old times e ccasiemed "—that was, in judicial fashion and after proper inquiry. But the 7th sect., centaining the penalties of priemunire against the dean and chapter for not electing within twelve days, and against the archbishop for not confirming within twenty days, added penal. ties, to be inflicted upon parties acting under the influence of orders from Rome. It had been doubted whether these penalties applied to 'anything except influence from Rome, and he thought that the words clearly referred to some extrinsic matters and influences. He had already stated that in his opinion the archbishop was empowered to act ju dicially. The early part of the clause seemed to say that the penalties would be enforced if he refused to confirm within 20 days, and it had been urged that this precluded judicial inquiry, which could not be completed within 20 days. He did not think that the words could bear any such construc tion. It was observable that in the sth section. requiring the king to send his letters patent, there was nothing said about time. It was aot then said in the anal form " with ail speed." The 7th section enacted the penalty if the Archbishop did not confirm within 20 days, but be appre hended that this meant, unless lawful impediment emtiN. All statutes enacting penalties must be so construed. What would amount to a sufficient impediment was not then • point necessary for inquiry so far as regarded the dean and chapter, bat as respected the archbishop. He conceived that a pending judicial inquiry would be a sufficient excuse. If he was right in supposing confirmation to be • judicial act, he conceived that the arch bishop would not incur the penalties by delay. It had been said that such would be a violation of the prerogative of the crown : he could not see it in that light. The construction he put on the act was, that it did not derogate from the prerogative of the crown, but that it did not extend it. Again, it had been said that ao refusal to con firm bad been discovered sine, the pruning of the statute. That was • circumstance of considerable weight, as, if pro ceedings had been brought immediately after the peeing of the act, we should have had a contemporaneous exposition of its meaning, possibly to the effect that it was merely • ministerial act. But the contrary was seen to be the feet, for elections had taken place in which inquiries had been held. The opinions of various writers had been rehired to by counsel. So far as they went, they appeared to him to afford an inference that the general notion we, that the archbishop was bound to confirm under the penalties of prienueure. In Brett it was put, What would be done if the king appointed an unfit person ? and it wee answered that he would no doubt consent to appoint another. If the act of confirmation was merely ministerial, what solemn mockeries must have been gone through. Any one who read the proceedings at confirmation as they were set forth in Gib son's Codex, could not but see that the statute gave to every step • judicial appearance and character. It was difficult to con ceive that such mockery could have been continued for such a length of time without any assignable motive. He could not but think, therefore, that confirmation bad not been altered in its nature,but that the fact of the powers of inquiry not being used arose from the necessity not having arisen Instances, those of Rundell and Clark, had been given where remonstrance to the crown had been effectual; but it seemed to him that no proceedings since the peeing of the statute, showed that the judicial character of con firmation was altered. It had been said that confirmation could not be • judicial act, because in it the archbishop meted through the viear-general, who bad no PIPISCISO OII mt . teatime natters. lie did not see that this altered the ease, because comfinnation was not, primed facie, a proceeding. It did not, however, seem that the archbishop was deprived of his power of investigating any chic which might be made in his Court of Audience. point was referred to in Oughton's " Prolegomena,' and: it strengthened his opinion that confirmation was nut ministerial. Neithercould he doubt that if the archbishop did act judicially, he would also have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, as in other courts. He did not lay any stress on the case of Bishop Montague, but it told against the supposition that the situation of an opposer was • mere shadow. In the case of Montague, the citation would certainly have been omitted, if it was a mere mockery. In the statute of Henry V., which had been alluded to, providing for the appointment of bishops by the archbishop during the papal interregnum, the direc tions to the archbishop were quite as precise as in the statute of Henry VIII., and yet confirmation snes pointed out and carried on as a judicial act. If it were a judicial act, the next question was, had the opposes a right to be heard? Now the statute of Henry VIII. laid down that all opposers were to be cited, and that the cita tion was to be stuck up in the church, and proclaimed at the time of confirmation. Whether the form of citation was in use before the time of Henry VIII., he believed did not distinctly appear; but after the statute it was proof that confirmation was treated as • judicial act. It seemed difficult to say that the vicar-general, after such a citation, would be justified in refusing to hear any persons who came forward with objections, any more than the Court of Queen's Bench could have refused the wager be bathe where it war demanded, before the law was altered.',Theosly question was ay hetherby law the course which the vicar-genera had pursued was the proper course. He bad refused to allow the objectors to appear at all, and he (Mr. Justice Patte rson) conceived that the vicar-general had misconstrued the powers given te him under the statute, in not hearing the parties who claimed to be heard. These parties appeared, however, to have been aggrieved, and to be entitled to a remedy. What was this remedy to be ? Was It to be by mandamus ? No other remedy had been shown. Even had the parties been heard, he doubted whether they could have bed as appeal, but dearly, as they had not been heard, them was an question of appeal at all. No case distinctly in paint had been cited on either side. If, indeed, by the practice of confirmation, independently of the supposed effeet of the act of Henry VIII., the citation of opposers was Wifely matter of form, like the challenge of the champion Si 0014365ti0111, the case might have come within the cased " Zaparte Smith" (3 Adol. and Ellis) ; but the matter was ash MP pat by the vicar-general, who proceeded on his con. deuttion of the statute. He did not think the Church Dis dpline Act touched the question. This was not the case of the prosecution of a bishop elect for alleged offences within the preceding two year., but simply a claim by certain parties to be heard as to certain objections they had to the bishop sleet. His mind had not been made up on this very int =subject without maturely weighing all the tin by which it was surrounded, and more especially the question as to the power of the court to rant the re quired mandamus. His opinion was, .that rat was a case peedierty fit to be put in such a shape as to enable the un successful parties here to obtain a writ of error. He was quite sensible of the agitation of men's minds on the subject, and of the inconvenience of keeping the question undecided ; but still he thought these iaconveniences leas than the ia mavenience of not settling the question satisfactorily. He hod not gone into that part of the allegations whfch die sired the nature of the objections to the bishop elect, for he Telerded the miscarriage to be the refusal of the vicar reto hear the parties snake their objections, whateve objections were. The case was wholly independent of Ike question, who the person was that was bishop elect, or whet the objections were to hint. It was • rue applicable I to any bishop elect. Upon the whole, he was of opinion that the rule for a mandamus ought to be made absolute. The Lord Chief Justice said he had no doubt that in this owe the mandamus sought for could not, and ought not, t awe ; and, even were he at all in doubt on the subject, he should think it better not to issue the writ than to run the risk of abridging the clear and established preroga tive of the crown in a matter of such vital im. penance still more to the best interests of the people then of the Crown itself. He would admit that there usened • prima facie case of wrong, where, after citation honed for persons to appear in opposition, and after procla mation to the same effect, persons so appearing were pro hibited from stating their opposition. The proceedings by ' which opposers were invited to appear, and then had their mouths stopped at the very outset, and were excluded the seam clearly reflected no honour on those who first inn ' Wed the form. It was an absurdity only exceeded by the theihest proceeding of declaring those very persons con namadeas for non-appearance who had actually ap• , and, claiming to be heard, were not he hat these things were anomalies there could be no doubt but they did not constitute a case for setting aside • clear and established rule, founded on a distinct act of parliament, ant settled by invariable practice. By whose authority had these proceedings been sanctioned in the present instance ? In the place, by that of a prelate entitled to the unbounded respect and confidence of all men, by that of the venerate Archbishop of Canterbury—who, in the course of his long career as metropolitan, must have takes • leading part in the confirmation of almost all the prelates in his province, now on the episcopal bench, and who, in the most trying times, had ever displayed the utmost up rightness, prudence, moderation, and circumspect care. The other party of whom complaint was made, was • perste whose mind, learning, and judgment were as well esta blished as was his high character in all other respects. These parties, so conversant with the law and custom in this matter, relied, not upon the abstract jusdoe or propriety of the particular form, but upon the ewes terms of an express act of parliament, the 25 of Eery VIII., esp. 20. The first observation that occurred to him, in reference to this act was, that no form of confirm ation whatever was set forth in it, or in the preceding act on the same subject, the 23 Henry VIII. ; which latter statute, after denouncing former exactions of the Pope by means of delaying the confirmation of bishops named by the King, enacted that for the future, any person presented to the court of Rome, aa bishop of any English see, and whose confirmation by papal bull should be unduly deferred, should be consecrated by his arch bishop, and be then and thereafter taken to be, and be, bishop of the see to which he had been named. In this statute the word confirmation die not once occur. This statute was kept alive by the 25 Henry VIII. The statute was framed in that spirit of jealousy of Rome which was at that time severing, one by one, all the Lila between this kingdom and that see, but neither King Henry nor any other king was likely to leave the means of making bishops imperfect or uncertain for the time to come. That was one of the objects of the statute, as put forth by the preamble ; and it had been asked whether such • king was likely, at the same time that he deprived the Pope of his veto, to give it to one of his own subjects ? The only answer which had been made to this question, he conf ess ed he hat heard with surprise and regret, bmuse, as he caught it, and he believed he was correct, it was a severe reflection on that great father of the English Protestant church, Archbishop Cranmer. He understood it to have been said that the king knew how ob sequious an archbishop he had in Cranmer, who would readily comply with the king's will. True, he was not a blameless man; far from it for, shortly before his death, he betrayed a great want of firmness; but he might be per• emitted to say, not greater than that exhibited by the Apostle whom the head of the church selected from among his brethren, as the rock upon which that church was to be built; and his death, at least, might have atoned for this fault, and have saved his memory from such observations in the presence of so many sons of the church of England. He must say he did not expect to hear the name of Creamer introduced for such a per pose, and he thought it showed great excitement of mind existing somewhere on the present occasion, who. they in the clients or in the counsel who made the remark. He would say that he felt it was doubly the duty of that court on such a question as this to take care that they were not led away by such impresaioni,"or yielded too much to the authority of these ecedenutical powers, which, in his opinion, it had been the duty of that court, in all ages, to watch with peculiar jealousy. (Sensation.) If Henry relied on Cranmer, as upon a mean and servile churchman, who would truckle to his caprices, he was wholly mistaken in his man. The archbishop, on more than one occasion, thoroughly thwarted the monarch on points which the monarch was especially bent upon carrying. He ;posed him in the matter of Anne Boleyn, and, despite fbieennzio'sf utmost os un t fo an ni g i e n r ne m q an ue i e fe n "2 . stir again, mseii inbetkliensmwaetternogt the Six Articles, both in and out of parliament, opposed the monarch, though it was perfectly well known that the latter was determined upon the extirpation of all views and doctrines contrary to his own by torture and death. But Creamer was not immortal, and other less tractable metropolitans might have arisen, e'en supposing his character had been what it had been represented; and it wee, therefore, inoonoeivable, by any ingenuity, that Henry would have snowed any doubt to remain as to the prerogative which he proposed to establish. The whole argument on the other side rested on the word confirmation; but this word did not occur alone in the statute, where it was found in the words " should confirm the said election, " words which plainly indicated the duties devolving oa the metropolitan. When the election was real two *help re quired to be certified to the archbishop—first, that tad elec. bon was duly made, and secondly, the identity of the person who brought the ceetificate, it being farther desirable, no doubt, that the archbishop his benediction and gracious reception of his new co lleague, should inspire the people with confidence and respect fo r im. But, it was mid he was to cite all persons to oppose; end it was • question whe ther he was bound to open a court of this decep tion. Be would uk, could there be an necessity for suck • MUMS when the person tobe confirmed had already been or dained • deacon, en which pennon all people had been called upon to pronounce whether they respected him of any crime or offence, when if anything were alleged against future proceeding:were deferred until inquiry had been made? The same person most have undergone the same ordeal on being ordained • priest; and, when bishop elect, he came with the addial testimony of parties well qualified toile** of his fitness in all respects; for, since the provision of that I statute, he brings the recommendation of the crown ; and was that to pass for nothing ? Why was the archbishop, then, to *lmmense an inquiry? Why was le to all upon all the world to come forward and oppose ? If the election were in the people, he could understand the argument ; but here it had passed away from the people, and been vested for ages in the dean and chapt er, , on the recom mendation of the crown. The limitation - of time im posed in the two great processes of election and confirma tion—of 12 days in the former came, and 20 in the latter — strengthened this view of the matter. The election, in feet, was reduced to • mere form, the appointment being in the crown; but consecration wore a more solemn aspect. The bishop was to be " called, tried, and examined;" and the archbishop, after receiving him at the hands of two bishops , demanded*. king's mandate for his consecration. Then the archbishop, att in his chair, was to put certain Heed viestions, to whichteed showers were to be given. The 36th article ordained especially that the consecration should be in this form. The consecration, therefore, was said to be, like the election, very little more than a formal ceremony. The one was the initiation of the dean and chapter, and the other the confirmation of the archbishop ; but both were, in reality, the Ws of the lave reign; and that being so, they were now asked to find 1101U0 reason why it should be more than • mere form also. The answer was, that the word " confirm " had ac, Min legal sense. The favour of the sovereign was supposed to have placed the bishop elect In a position analogous to that of • felon, whose trial the jury were to decide. He had pleaded not guilty to the charge ; and all persons were then to be ineited, by public proclama tion, " if they knew of any treasons, felonies, or other mis demeanors done by the prisoner at the bar, to came forward and give their evidence." That was the position in which it was now contended a bishop-elect, whesedoetrines had been approved of on his ordination to the offices of deacon and priest, who had been nominated by the crown, and elected by the dean and chapter, was to be placed by the favour of his sovereign • and the charge was to be made blacker, if possible, by the use of a word, to which was attached the foulest of crimes which had disgraced man kind the full and comprehensive word " heresy." And while upon this topic he felt it necessary to repeat what had often been stated in former judgments— that the canon law formed no part of the common law of the realm unless practice could be shown to the contrary, and then he was of opinion that the burden of proof on such a point rested on the parties opposing; but into this he need not go, for he was convinced that the practice of hearing opposers never bad existed authoritatively in this country, and for proof of that I • relied, not upon affidavits, but upon the arguments of the appellants themselves, for he was satisfied that if even such a case could have occurred it would not only Dave been cited in that court, but would have been notorious to all the world. But there was not a trace of such a case ; all records, historical and legal, proved a perfect blank with re spect to it. It was argued that perhaps such a case never had occurred because an appeal to that court a ight never before have been necessary. What ! during all the oenturies Christianity had existed, had not one person, some of whets* opinions might have been alleged heretical, been elevated to the bench of bishops? Had there been none elevated with " spiritual pride," none with " jealousies," none against whom some person or another might not have alleged some sorted "immoralities?" And eves if this were so,were there no persona during all that period capable of making a false charge —of drawing • false inference? Where were the sons of Beiial at that time,—a class that were not extinct in they's days, and that never failed to be forward in cases in which they took so much delight ? (Sensation.) But suppose opposers admitted : let them observe what would happen ? Coma forth, said the proclamation, and offer your opposition in the case of this person to be made a bishop. The answer is, from one, " I knew this man at college, and I can tell you of some irregularities in his life." Another would say " This person is justly suspected by one of having performed service whilst in a state of inebriety." A third might charge him with "vanity." Another might throw a slur upon the chastity of his mother, or attack his own conduct respecting his son. All that the Pharisee blessed himself at being free from, these people might falsely allege against the bishop. He might know all the allegations to be false and infamous; the judge might think the me misers utterly unworthy of belief: yet the inquiry must proceed, and • string of calumnies must be heard. But how much was this case strengthened when the charge was the unfathomable charge of heresy, supported by ex tracts front books difficult to understand, and by reported conversations, probably imaginary, and, if real, difficult to be correctly repeated ? Thus the life of a bishop might be frittered away whilst proceedings were pending against him, and his see might be left without an occupant, to the detriment of the church and of the people. The existence of this course being inferred, the next consideration was what the pro ceedings would be. These might be inferred from the schedule of the court, which was described by Bishop Gibson, and from which it appeared that in the courts of confirmation it was absolutely taken (or granted that no opposers would appear, and that, if they did appear, there was no provision for what should be done. Now for aught that they could gather, it would seem that the form 'of appearance was no more than any other part of the proceedings before the court: a form kept up from stage, or possibly because certain i•molumenta attached to every one of the ten stages to be gone through. There was no evidence that this form had any vitality in any part of the period during which Christianity had ex isted—since the Reformation or even before it. ut even if it had existed before it, why might they net presume the ecclesiastical authorities themselves to have the credit of re fusing to persist in a power which was most anomalous and dangerous? He would not go so far as to say that any attempt to give the form vitality or to carry the law into effect, must have shown its utter impracticability ; but he thought such was highly probable. Let him con sider, however, what a mighty edifice was sought to be built up upon it. He was told that the archbishop was a court but that this court had ever dons what it was now required to do was never pretended. The right of appointment of • bishop by the crown, without the interference of the arch bishop, had, in fact, never been doubted ; that any opposer to the confirmation was entitled to appear was never even surmised. There had been, in fact, only one exception to the mile of the non-appearance of opposes", and that exception was in the case of Bishop Montague, when the vicar-general, Dr. Ryves, refused to hear an op poser, guarding himself, however, by stating that he did so because his opposition was not in writing. Of this Dr. Banes they knew little, and that little not much to his credit; but it was very deer that if he did give such a judg ment he was wrong, for in the law nothing was said about the opposition being in writing, and indeed it might proceed from • party who was not able to write. If such a proceeding as this were permitted, the op poser of the new Bishop of Manchester might appeal to that court. True, the Bishop of Manchester had been con secrated, but even then a plausible ground might be laid for appeal, for it was open to a doubt at what precise stage • man became a bishop. In a cue formerly before the court, the question was, whether a bishop was a bishop after else tion or after confirmation, and a very extended argument— half the length of that they had heard in this cue—wasbuilt up upon those positions. But even on that occasion no hint was dropped that opposers might be admitted, and Justice Whitelock made no reference to any such possi bility. A useful pamphlet had been cited in that court, containing a collection of opinions upon the subject of the prerogative, in the form of dialogues and statements. It ap peared from that pamphlet that both Charles It. and Wil liam 111. had made orders relative to the appointment of bishops; but in neither of those instances was the right of int,•rlerence with the appointment of the crown in any way recognised. The case of Bishop Gibson, which had been before mentioned, was a remarkable one. He was assailed by one of the most learned judges who ever sat in that court. Sir Matthew Foster , as one who desired to erect the church into an imperiunt in imperio. This charge it was that induced him to write that celebrated treatise which still remained a perfectstorehouse of ecclesiastical law, but in no one page of which did he assort the existence of any power on the part of an archbishop to defeat by such an inquiry as that before the Court of Confirmation, the right of nom tion by the crown. In the case of Bishop 'badly, that prelate gave his opponents free opportunities of making op position to his confirmation, knowing that something was alleged against him. Archbishop Wake remonstrated with the sovereign against the promotion of Dr. Samuel Clarke, and other sovereigns had consulted archbishops before pro moting to the office of bishop; but not a word had been uttered not a tact had been cited to show that any archbishop had evzr instituted, or could ever institute, any inquiry. E v ery one had heard in this case of the celebrated protest ad by thirteen or fourteen bishops of the church to the prime minister, against the appointment of this prelate. The argu ments they urged were arguments of great weight and power, but though they warned the minister of "scandal" arising from the nomination, not once did they allude to rejection of the prelate on confirmation on the ground of heresy, or any other ground. One of the objectors said he wished not to be exposed to the peril of a prientunire, but there was ne as of any opposition likely to arise at the confirmation 'on the part of those who had procured the condemns tion of the bishop-elect by the convocation of his university. It was said, indeed, that by not allowing the court to inquire the archbishop would be converted into a mere "machine." That word " machine," suggested to him (Lord Denman) the idea that the writ of that court might possibly be required to be used as a " machine"—• machine with some sort of galvanic operation to call into mo mentary existence powers hitherto supposed to be extinct. But this idea implied that the forms into which vitality was to be generated, had ever had exiitepce. He did not believe that ever to have been the cue. The duty of the archbishop in the matter appeared to him to be clear, and entirely apart from the functions of a judge. If his inquiries led limn t, the opinion that the appointment would be injurious, he could remonstrate. He could advio• tar deo.n ant to issue a conFi d'ilire. He might ask to be removed from the painful position of performiag, or ordering to be performed, the duty of consecration ; or, if he was quite clear that the conga d'ilire ought to be set aside, he might set as his conscience doubtless would dictate, and as some of the judges of that ' wart had acted, resign the office which the crown had given to him. As to the right course to be taken by an archbishop he had no doubt ; and as to the circumstances of the present case, if the archbishop felt any doubt, ha (Lord D.) was perfec tly assured, that ere the confirmation, be had found all his doubts resolved relative to the propriety of the appointment, which was now the subjectof consideration. He would ask whether it had been the opinion of any person, until within the last few weeks, until this unfor tunate controversy bad occurred, which had so inflamed the public mind that the archbishop had a veto on the ap pointment o 1 the crown to a vacant bishopric ? And when hs beard Sir F.l Hely entrent, with so much solemnity of manner, that they would not expose the archbishop to the mockery and shadow of so sacred a proceediag in which the Almighty was invoked in prayer ; when the learned counsel called upon the court not to pronounce that all this cere mony was a mere useless form, be confessed that he har knew how to meet such an ob servation. confe Were the deana d n i l chapter to be treated as nothing ? Did they conduct their proceedings without prayer and solemn ceremony ? And if they were required, notwithstanding, to proceed to the elu tion, without the power of refusing to elect the nominee of the crown, why should they be referred *nip to the confirmation, and not to the election 1 It might be an ill-considered and an impious act of parliament, and one per haps that ought to be repealed, bat why there should be any objection made to the solemn oerenthey of the confirmation and the election, which was conducted with equal solemnity, both of which were in conformity with the act of parliament, he could not understand. It reminded him of the two Roman augurs who were said never to meet each other without laughing ; and it certainly did appear to him that IL the court yielded to the request of the learned gentleman on each a ground, the avast* on both sides 'mid have good cecinas to laugh at its &wince. Herten stated his rem= for Oa opiaisesvhido lis ttlilmcatsly, fleshy, awl isoteintinsW • is , (..........._ A r .• i.i . ';, . , ~, ~ 1 5,...._t...,),