The Express. — London, England, 1848-01-27 00:00:00

• II . e _o_o" EAR VALLEY RAILWAY. CALL of 5 2 . For dare es the 535 shares, making IA rairl...2 AZ HbREBY GIVEN, that in pura.asys of . resolution of n e wt of Merton. the proprieten , of .V 5 SMARMS In thlr Corn. ... . q r. required to pay an EPTALMENT al rl por Aare on snob 2Wrak Amer. on or below SU lititsAY. the tat day of February. 46. lithe offl:em of th e Treagurbr, Jumweb Port. th q.. ihinehmic.; at rc Noma Greven and Fowthrh. Marko, ...e he w. le further given. UAL the holden, a each dam ars O .7" ee d t h e o ption of-paying In full ; after ishich, the &Mead, attar the wee rort rant (or II 10s. per *bare) anctum, will by paid whbrrab dagnellaa of Interaa. HENRY STOBART, Mamma. THOMAS MAC NAY, Iheyregary. arageggs . olllce, Giuilngton, Jan. 14, 1041. treasurer. or the hankers, will rynyhre the paidgialea of h hylarr the time of tendering psyniont. th.dll I. not paid at the appointed period, Inters.' at 5 per mil p.a ., m w in h e e baressi from time due to Woe of DIOMI - art the Mt ides& on the ..1330006 may take data uniformly-fr.as mid Ist of Ethrnerf IMATITtS and OROCER. , .—To be DlS posEn et a good reedy.rnoney LINEN and WOOLLEN PUY !SUMNER& The_yrunte nee Ruud. and the stock email. GROCERY and PRONISION TRADE, eornmunkntlng. ad In the n 6 ,14 nerulous dherlot uf the county ot Durham— A _Tb. e h..ye hare been carried together. but nook% be dimmed if The t he sure gee. A matlslnateey Tenon a serg,„ fo , p.ojnyrith the woo.— Annlication to bo-olado to JATID It/tK enute .bridae vie LANIOND and Co., railway share r agrxtfally be/ to Inform their friends and the that ther continue daily to nUY and PILL all denerlptions of .WA, -,AI A R iA nanny dsitaiturea, Knelin and foreign noels. and all other share. and property.and Co. alto stock s.. 10000 e that their public We eget plaoe evert Wednenday, at I Lai the Hall of Commerce. Threadneedle qniet, London; to their , a hich place all Wow.% are requentod to be addreseed.—Thread ienaet. London, Jan. I, IN& Now readr, to be had of aft Dealers. e UMMERLY'S ART-MANUFACTURES, A y tg .. 8e1 . 1 .6. ., , p i e t. Cre.det z. re. Iloevioy. Mee:lW, Mulreedy. god. Cried the Lam r and l;3 3 . 0 Broom lakelead (and impair Mrian). and aline', . . .......... liname I'd ..... ...... a . 2 2 0 Water Van leitiesi ......2 12 6 %Pr alt cela, (P. Fish Carvers (silver) ... 11 11 0 . 1 7 (I The " ilia - Paper Clinker 2 6 0 twin 'children (Parkin' 0 9 0 Wino Tray (papier mach!, 2 10 0 Udell inkstand (Parkin, 1 13 L. A picture calak•me sent on i Also pr WsBOOK El for ART-WORRI Mort Truitt,. on that a aishich every Workman oh tow:sew. editor. from his frequent communications with M flaky workmen. KM had personal experleux of their want of tin =book, art.workrnen. that la workmen employed In and reproducing arrangements of colour and ford: k.jr.:,. MI manufacturing operatbus which demand ought to ho aoinowhat acquaint...l with the pet work hi founded- It le their Lniairet ta be iie as pthe mere amount rt their wages, wrikia Is regolated by and &Nifty to a grad ,Marc. Nut our workmen nadir emit of. icionvitste. The editor ha, very often met with t 1.11114.) el on flower 'sainting who were unable to • om nature. and were Ignorant alike of the prinelpleat Abb. lad Moll. lie Of the structure of i on And it h as 'cagy commonly Indeed. to end workmen engaged in *Nag the torts of a human tlguro--rattempting to give thei et the moat delicate and relined expre.eion--who not only m r* ild= what namber of Worland joint. a finger had. but were ova Malls IS W 6 llll7wlth accuracy. two far as hooka can aftoni a weedy for lbw ,it le the aim of the propose.' aeries to simply it. They will ke pelitiehed occadonally. fully aluetated, :1114 at prices,. low. that • manufacturer ihall find it to be hie intenet to distribute them among bla workmen. A 131014 the priacipal subject., each 0,10 MMUS 00C book, rosy be owed I. Ocneral coome of Study nece. , ary for an Art-Workman. 2. Drawing and the I'*3 of the Pencil 3. Principles of Light and shade. 4. Per.pective. 6. Omura' Study and Obervation of Nature. 6. Principle. of LIDO and Form. 7. Natural Objects apptied to Ornament. 6. Principles of Colour. 9. anatomy of the Hunan Form. In. anatomy of Waste, Birds, ie. 11. arts tic Botany. 12. Past Styli's of Ornament, and their derivation from Nature. 13. Art of alodellina. 14. Art of Clueing, Die Sinking, lte.. ic. Each suhjort will be treated by an artl4 fully acquainted with it, and Tereetheelly familiar with the wants of the art. workman. Joseph CundeJl,ll2. Old Hotri.street. of two poems et..3l*. r5r...r..11t4.41 by You rum YoLY. °ant of Elementary Knatdlodiro of had to product Indilaaufactures IVORY-/lANDLED TABLE KNIVES. 10,. per doxon.—lvorytandled table knit eP, with high shoulders. 10,. par down, Uto balance la. per down extra; de.ert, : carvers. 3e. id. py gap. • whltsbuna table knives, 6s. per dozen , domeels. 40., cases, k per tot'; ham table 'mire', St per dozen: de.wrts, h. • 24 601. • table steels. Is. aegis; table knlree. with handle. of the celebrated subdltuto for sliver (which ,17 - uund ho distinguished from Kering direr, except by the markt, tk, per J.;:en : desserts. las ; carvers. per pair, fa 6d. AU matted •• Murton date WA.. sad Bur loaf and warranted.—WlLLlAM S. BURTON'S d late Rlppon and Barton sl stock of emend furnfshlng ironmongery M Htcra/ly the largest to the world, and an no language on be employed to glsa a correct Idea of It, twisty and extent, purekvers are invited to ell and Inspect It.— W. Oxford-street (corner of Newmanetreev. Established fa Meet. 1/190. TEA. —At No. 8, King William-street, City, the lama oorourner of Tea le Supt lied with good oottud BLACK or )IIXEP TEA. at 3.. 24. per lb., a price muwoordenterily low for Tea stronc, awful quality. the bat Ceylon COFFEE, Ild per lb. PHILLIPS sad Co.. s, Kin,: .m-Woo, corner of Abe lurch lane, lacing the London Life Awoelatloo. CA UT 1 0 N.—A. HOWLAND and SON, 20. Itattonstarden,London. beg to emotion the nobility and gentry, 'Want, being mialod by the attempts of some shopkeepers, who to coin rounds of their own noutufactare giro the tinedof ' Macaosar Oil," Hairier," and " Odom. - -some under the Impllod sanction of roy alty and the oorernment derv...meets, with sirellar attempt. at doepoee yy tion, white they copy the label., bills, advertisements, and tenlinontals (eabstituting fictitious names and addresses for the real) of the original peeparations. The only genuine " Macawar Oil." " Kalydor,' and "Odonto." are " Rowlands% 'and the wrapper of each boar, the name of "Rowlands - preeedino that of the article, with their Manattire ae In foot, in re 1 ink, thee-" A. ROWLAND& SON.•' dold by there.at 10.liation.carden, Landon. and by all chemist. , aiwi Perfurcers. - - - - IN PREPARATION. THE SEA and tHE RAILWAY : their New Relation+ stlfnrth in a Jaunt along the Manebater. Sheffield, and Lincoingtire }Whys, M Orimsby Docks. Cr FKLIX Firemen.. With Woalcuta, by C. W. Collo, A.8.A., D. Cox, jun., T. Crearriek, LILA., and N. Redgrave , A.R. A. London Longman, Brown. Green, awl Longman, The following worts win be published on the Mst Inst. COMIC HISTORY OF ENGLARD.-- By G 1L.66T Amer: a Becalm Non. XIX. and XX., priee b. (being the completion). VANITY F Sewscass or Evousu No. XIV. By W. M. Tuaczgaste (Tinnarehl. With numerous nations. Price Is. This work wild be completed In Eighteen or Twenty Numbers. DOUGLAS JERROLD'S SHILLING MAGAZINE. No. XX XVIII. PUNCH; or, TUE LONDON CUARIVAIII. Part LXXIX. Price Is. 4d. London : Published at the " Punch" Mlle*, 85, FleetwtreeL LATEST INTELLIGENCE. THIS DAY, Four o'clock. EXPRESS FROM PARIS. Our Paris dispatches of yesterday noon have brought the report of an interesting debate which took place in the Chamber of Deputies on Tuesday, and which was protracted to the unusually lice hour of seven o'clock. The subject was the Public Finances, which elicited from M.l hiets a severe attack on the government, which was replied to, with scarcely less ability and effect, by M. I)uchatel. The second pa. ragraph of the address, on which the debate arose, has not yet been adopted, the discussion having been adjourned to yesterday. The state of uncertainty in which the public con tinued respecting the situation of affairs at Naples, was felt at the Bourse, but was in some measure coun teracted by a fmourable impression produced by the statement of the Minister of Finance in the chamber. The Threes opened at 73 70; and, having risen and fallen alternately 10c., closed at the opening price. They afterwards fell slightly in the Coulisse, and still more in the Passage, on the arrival, at elate hour, of the further intelligence from Naples, which we give below. A letter from Frankfort, of the 20th, states that a heavy gloom pervades the money market of that city. Theo per Cent. Metalliques fell, on the 20th, not less than 2 per cent, the closing price bAng 1001. By the steamer Srsostris, which left Naples on the 18th, and arrived at Marseilles, on the 22nd, we hare further particulars and full confirma tion of the reported insurrection in Sicily. Notwith standing the usual severe measures resorted to by the Neapolitan government to obstruct the transmission of intelligenc:., enough has transpired to render it certain that the whole population of Sicily, men, women, and children, are in open revolt. A variety of details have been received in private letters, ad dressed to the journals of Marseilles and Paris, and to commercial houses, from which we select the fol lowing A correspondent of Le Noarelliste de Marseilles, writing from Naples, on the 18th says: The severity with which communications are intercepted prevents u- from knowing exactly what has taken place at Catania. Syracuse, Reggio, blellasso, and the principal towns of the interior, but everything leads us to believe that there, as at Palermo, the insurrection has been energetic. As to Messina, we can affirm, in the mee.t positive manner, that all the population are in arms, and that the royal troops, too weak to put down the general movement, have been complied to retire ti the tort, where they were pre paring to bombard the town. At this movement, however, a British frigat , ', the Thetis, c immand d tey Captain Cod rington, rind whit 11 had quitted N toles on the first news of this event, to isle , under her rof vion the English resi dents at Messina, anchored under the fort. The captain, in concert with the English and French consuls, give notice to the military governor not to commence his fire until the subjects of the two countries should be safely on hoard. But Captain Codrington, doubting the promise to this ffect of the Nespo item governor, rcsorsed to the following stratagem : He placed 'he Thetis as near as possible to the fort, and in the direction of he- guns, and placed his sale in such a position that a shot could not be fired without touching one of them, which was by far to. serious a thing for the governor to at tempt to do. ik is to be feared, however, that although Captain Codrincton would prolong this state of things as much as possible, he would be unable to save Messina from the horrors of a bombardment, as soon as the British and French subjects should be on board his ship. Our last ac counts from Palermo were of the 12th. Almost at the mo ment when the insurrection broke out, the English squadron which had been in the port for a fortnight set sail, leaving only a frigate for the protection of the English residents. The squadron returned to Naples on the 15th. The royal troops, which at the date of our last correspondence wen rmtlx. foot of the Monte-Pellegrino, had returned to their , where they had to sustain the attacks of the people, who fought with Wry. These engagements, although very langulnary, had been without decisive results. The troops in the barracks and forts replied to the fire of the assailants, but they were closely blockaded up to the 16th, the date of our last news. The troops fought with resigna tion, but it was easy to perceive that they fluctuated between a sense of military duty, and their feelings as Citizens. The people bad formed a provisional government. We guarantee the rigorous 'subsea of the general facts we have thus recited ; bat we consider it to be our duty to warn the public against the circumstantial or partial details which may be circulated on the these events. The confusion at Pa lermo is so great that the menthes of the Provisional Govern meat themselves are ignorant of what is passing at the dif ferent points of the insurrection. The greatest enthusiasm and most perfect accord reigns among the people. Men, womenjand children, have all combined in raising the bar ricadee land cutting this trenches. No excess tending to compromise the patriotic cause has occurred to tarnish their proceedings. The English consul, whose arms were accidentally thrown down in the attempts made by the police to force their way into the residence of Count Aceto, obtained immediate reparation. The troops sent over into Sicily did not amount to more than 5,000 men, and were considered to be totally inadequate to stifle the rebellion. Count d'Aquna has returned to Naples, to inform the !government of the gravity of the state of things, and of the impotence of the reinforcement he had taken with him into Sicily to effect any serious change. Nothing positive is known about the state of the provinces which are said to have risen. The representatives of France and England are acting in concert at Naples, as regards the government. It is well to say, however, that they appear rather to be waiting the issue of events than to be wearying themselves with vain negotiations, which have en repeatedly turned out abortive. The attitude of the Neapolitans has hitherto been cairn, without any disturbance of public order ; this, no doubt, is to be attributed to the 3,5,000 troops at Last eta. tioned in Naples and in the environs. The despatches from our consuls in Sicily, which arrived at the moment the Sesostris was getting under weigh, did not even pass through the French embassy, but were at once c irried on board that vessel, so anxious was our representative to transmit them to his government. The same packet, on her snivel, received on board M. de Lardehefoucault, the French ambassador at F.orence, who, last evening, arrived In Marseilles A correspondent of the Gazette Piedmontese says Messina began the insurrection on the 4th, eight days before the general rising, and had organised a chic guard, and taken possession of the fort of S. Salvadore. At Palermo, at the first reports of cannon, the bagarioti, or country people, flocked in arms to the capital, headed by the priests, with crucifixes in their hands, haranguing the multitude, and saying that, u Christ had disd for them, they should die for their country. The cavalry attacked the people, but were repulsed with a loss of 60 men ; the people only lost 20. Some persons were seen pouring boiling oil on the soldiers from the windows; and among the pieces of furniture that assailed their heads from above there was a piano! The citadel of Messina still held out, but it was believed it would shortly surrender .. A letter from Marseilles, dated the 22nd, says: 1" The passengers from Naples who left on the 18th, and are just arrived here, state that Naples was in a state of great anxiety as to the intentions of the go vernment. Artillery had been placed in front of all the guard-houses, and patrols of 100 men each were constantly in motion." The French government has ordered one of its largest war-steamers to sail immediately for Naples. The Journal des Debate says, that the troops which had been sent by the steam squadron from Naples, were disembarked without difficulty, near Palermo, where they took a position on the shore and in the forts. General Sauget, who commanded them, effected a communication with the Due de Majo and General Vial, who were in the Castello, Iteale. It was thus ascertained that the insurgents had appointed three committees, which had sent to the Due de Majo a note, declaring that the people demanded the consti tution of 1812, and the liberty of the press. This demand being rejected, it was decided to bombard the city, but the Connt d'Aquila, who had the com mand in chief of the expedition, did not think fit to resort to this measure, without further instructions from the King, and accordingly returned to Naples on the 17th. All the foreigners at Palermo had left the city and embarked. Our correspondent at Rome, writing on the 18th, says, that "the King of Naples was expected in that capital on the 19th, to confer with the Pope and Lord Minto, and, if possible, m devise some means of coming to an amicable arrangement with hie revolted subjects. We learn, by a letter from Rome of the 18th, that the Pope has nominated General Gabrielli, formerly an officer in the French army, Minister of War. This nomination of a member of the laity to a mi nistry has produced the best effect. It is the best commentary on the very remarkable proprio motu, which we gave a few days since, on the reorganisa tion of the council of the ministers. . . The two French bishops recently nominated by the King to the sees of Carcassonne and Soissons (MM. de Bonnechose and Gareignes), had been con firmed, on the 17th January, by the consistory. Mon signor Vizzardelli, Secretary to the F.eclesiastical Affairs Extraordinary, has been promoted to the dig nity of cardinal. A private letter from Civita Vecchia, of the 19th, says: Though government has sent to Sicily eleven steamers full of troops, the insurrection is persisted in. After eight days' fighting, the Count d'Aquila, brother to the King, to whom the command of the expedition was trusted, returned sud denly to Naples, in order to receive further instructions. We are enured he presented to the King the u/timatum of the &elan people. The insurgents have both money and muskets, which are generally of English fabrication. The valour of the Sicilians is the more brilliant, as the greatest part of the forts are in the hands of the royal troops ; and they have, moreover, to defend themselves against the squadron sent from Naples. This town is tranquil in appearance, but ready to follow the movement, on the first intelligence from Sicily. We know nothing concerning Calabria nor the Abruzzi. We have received the journals and correspondence of Constantinople to the 7th inst. The sultan had evinced a most favourable disposition towards Reischid Pacha and Ali Effendi, granting to the former a pen sion for life of 6,000!. a year, and has raised the latter to the dignity of a pacha of three tails. As these are the statesmen most distinguished for their liberal and enlightened principles, great satisfaction has been produced by this measure at the Porte. Our Malta correspondent, writing on the 17th, Says : The Flamer came in on the 15th, at sunset, from Mar seilles, with the Overland Indian Nail, of 28 iron and two wooden boxes. She had experienced dreadful weather the pre vious night, and lost two of her best men, blown overboard from the foretopsail-yard. The life-buoy was fired and let go; the vessel immediately rounded to, but in vain. The gale was so strong she could not fetch the buoy, which showed • brilliant light for a quarter of an hour. Her commander, Lsvie, finding all efforts at saving the men useless, as no boat could have lived in such • sea, very reluctantly was compelled to hear up for Malta, losing also his life-buoy. Really, the Admiralty have not a little to answer for in keeping such old, worn-out tubs as the Volcano and Flamer to run with mails, at a snail's pace, and at a season of the year when north-west gales are so viol nt and prevalent. Our Paris letter of last evening says that, among the passengers who arrived on the 22ad at Marseilles, by the Sesostris, was the Count de Rochefoucauld, minister of France at Florence, the object of whose visit to Paris is understood to be to inform the govern ment of the actual situation of public affairs in Tuscany. M. Cornudet, the son of the peer of France of that name, has just left Paris for Italy, with despatches for the French ministers at Home and at Naples. The Countess de Montejo, late mistress of the robes (camerara-major) to the Queen of Spain, has just arrived from Madrid at the Tuileries, where she is to remain attached to the suite of the Duchess of Mont pensier. Psrus, Isv. 26.—New Loan, 75; Three per Cents, 74; PlTela, 116 10 Four-and-Halt 104; hour* 99 50. Belgian Fives, 4040, 99; Ds., 1542, 96 4; Do. Fortnand-adalf, 914; Naples Renter , . 96 50; ROM= Loan, 931. Ttessury Benda, 41. Bank Shares, 3170. Ex change on London, night, 25 60. Itsasrses—Pans and Orleans, 1,177 50 ; Paris n e and Rouen, 1493 75 ; Rouen and Re, 40; Strasbourg and Bale, 156 25 ; Bordeaux, 475; North, 531 25. _ _ The Madrid mail of the 20th arrived in Paris, at a late hour, yesterday afternoon. A grand ball was given at the palace, to which Espartero was not in vited, in consequence, it is said, of his not having paid his respects by a visit to Queen Christina. Nothing of importance occurred in the Chambers. The minis terial majority is estimated at 155. Mk 1,11143 Jas 20. Three per Cents., 271 cash, 271 at in days; Four per 'Cents., —. Fire per Cent., 171 cash, 171 at 50 day. PlNsively 51 paper, 5; cash. Coupons, —. BankFeinand, 125 cuh. Rink ef isaseng —. Exchange on London, 45. Letters from Turin announce that the King had ordered an entrenched camp to be formed on the heights of Valcnza, upon the Po, in order to defend the country against any attack of the Austrian troops, and to hold also the government at Milan on the qui vire against a possible invasion of the Milanese, by the Piedmontese troops. This camp is to consist of 30,000 men. The Aan, of Florence, of the 18th, publishes far ther details respecting the insurrection in Sicily. The people had declared to the government that if, within ten days, the reforms demanded were not granted, they would rise in arms. The government having returned no other answer to this except the recall of General Vial, a proclamation was placarded at Palermo, of which the following is a transaction : " Sicilians,—The time of petitioning is gone by. Protestations, supplications, pacific demonstrations are useless. Ferdinand has treated all these with contempt ; and we, the people, born free, and now loaded with chains, and reduced to misery—shall we hesitate to claim our legitimate rights? To arms! eons of Sicily. Oar combined force will be invinci ble. The 12th Jan., 1848, the break of day, will mark the glorious era of our regeneration. Palermo will receive with transport all the Sicilians in arms who will present themselves to support the common cause and establish the reforms and the institutions which are in accordance with the progress and the well-being of Europe, of Italy, and of Pies IX. Union, order, obedience to your chiefs, respect for property. Robbery is high treason against the country, and will be punished as such. Whoever is in want will be relieved at the common charge. Heaven cannot fail to favour our just cause. Sicilian', to arms !" On the morning of the insurrection an English steamer was in the port. The people seized the com mercial steamer Il Geglio dells Onde, on which they raised the Sicilian flag, and was sent to make a tour of the island to excite to revolt all the maritime towns. This perfectly succeeded. At Trapani, Calania. &c., the inhabitants were found in arms on the arrival of the steamer. The provisional government at Palermo distributed freely money and arms. On the arrival of the news at Niiples, placards were posted to the following effect : " Neapolitans! Rouse yourselves from your torpor ! Follow the example of Sicily, &c. &c." SPECIAL COMMISSION. CLONMEL, MONDAY, JAN. 24. The judges arrived here to-day from Limerick, at three o'clock, escorted by • party of the 4th Light Dragoons, and attended by the High Sheriff of the county, Lord Suir dale. At four o'clock their lordships entered the Court house, and the clerk of the crown having rood the townie anon, the grand panel was called. The Chief Justice addressed the grand jury at consider able length ; but from the late hour at which lus concluded I ant usable to send you a report of his observe tions until to-morrow. The charge occupied an hour in tke delivery, and portions of it were uttered with great energy of tone and manner. In one particular at least it dd . - fered from the addresses to the grand juries of Limerick and Clare. His lordship recommended the formation in parishes, or lesser districts, of associations for the preserve tion of the peace, which would show who were the friends of peace and order, who were their enemies, and who were the neutrals. His lordship, among other things, strongly con demned that " dangerous precept," the " wild justice of re venge," and pointed out how certainly those who acted on it would become its victim..._ The Attorney and Solicitor Generals, Mr. Scott, Q.C., and Mr. Saume, have arrived to conduct the prosecutions ; and Mr. Itolleston has been assigned for the defence of such prisoners as are unable to employ counsel. It has been stated that Mr. Brewster, Q.C., and Mr. O'llagan, are to come down special to defend a man named Geogegan, charged with the murder of Mr. Roe. This trial is to come on first to-morrow.—The town is much crowded, and a good deal of interest seems to be excited by the proceedings. THE BISHOPRIC OF HEREFORD. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 26. REGINA V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. [Part of the following appeared in a second edition of last night's Expr, as.] Mr. Peacock, in support of the rule for a mandamus, said that by the canon-law a power had been allowed of task ing objections, and the querion was, whether that law had been altered by the atotute of Henry VIII., and whether it was compulsory, in all cities, and under all circumstances, on the archbishop to confirm and consecrate the bishop duly elected by the dean and chapter. The question was, whether, 1 by the 7th section of the statute of Henry, it was not meant that, if the archbishop refused to confirm and consecrate ac• cording to law—that was to say, if he wilfully and corruptly refused to consecrate, or if he refused to confirm and cense erre, unless there was a legal and valid objection to his I doing PO he should be subject to a prieinunire. He understood it was admitted on the other side that the canon law was not allowed in violation of, or in prejudice be, the preruatives of the crown. But in the time when the statute of Henry VIII., chap. 19, waa passeelt was not the prerogative of the crown at all to compel the archbishop to consecrate. It would not in those days have been con trary to the prerogative of the crown if the 'archbishop heard the opposers. But then the 20th chapter was primed which, it was contended, compelled the archbishop to mod= at all events. It was clear that, whatever the law was as to confirmation, it was the same as regarded consecra Linn, The question was then, did that statute of Henry VIII., chapter 20, intend to compel the archbishop to consecrate the bishop, under all and every circumstance, although he might know that the person presented to him was not worthy to be ear...crated ? He was not now alluding' totheobjections in the present ace, because he apprehended, whatever might be the nature of the objections, ;it was for the archbishop to determine whether they were good or sot. The question, therefore, was, ought the oppo sers in the present case to be heard, and if they ought to be heard, would a mandamus go to compel the archbishop, who had pronounced his decision, not on the canon law, but on a ' misconstruction of the statute of Henry VIII., to hear them t It was said that every power which belonged to the pope was vested in the sovereign of the country. If a person not of the ape of thirty was presented to the archbishop, was he compelled to consecrate 1 It was pertectly clear that the king had not the same pqwer as the Pope. Mr. Justice Erie : The same power to dispense. Mr. Peacock apprehended that the king could not dis pense with the age of a bishop, it being enacted by statute that a bishop should be of the age of thirty. Again, was the archbishop bound to consecrate • person a bishop, if he knew him to he guilty of a crime—such a crime, for instance, as would beyond all doubt insure his deprivation from the archbishop ? If he had bean found guilty of a felony, and • person who wished to object came forward with the legal documents which proved it, would the archbishop be bound to consecrate him ? In the conse cration of bishops one of the questions to the archbishop was, " Will you be faithful in ordaining and in the laying on of hands ?" Having promised to do that, was he to lay his bands on a person whom he might have actually seen com mitting a crime, or whose conviction for committing • crime might be placed before hint, or if he did not do so was he to be subject to a prnmunire ? It was not con sistent with reason that such could be the meaning of the statute, and it must follow that its meaning was, that he was to confirm and consecrate, unler there should be a valid objec. tion to his dolor se. The proctor made a ffi davit in the case that he was provided with all the necessary documents, but he was stopped by Dr. Lushington, who said that he could not be permitted to bring in • libel, not being allowed to appear. Thus a definitive sentence was pronounced, to the effect that the court was prohibited by the statute from delaying or refusing confirmation. The decision, therefore, was not that the objections were not valid, but that the statute precluded them (the court) from entertaining such ;objections. Suppose, at the consecration under that statute, that the archbishop, in the course of his duty, asked if the candidate believed in the Holy Scriptures, and the bishop elect answered " No," would the archbishophe bound, under penalty of a priemuoire, to proceed with the consecration under such a circumstance ; or, suppose the record of a conviction against the bishop elect were produced to the archbishop at the time of consecration, would it be contended that the ceremony ought to proceed, under the penalty ? He (Mr. Peacock) maintained that it could not. Mr. Justice Coleridge: Have you made search for entries of priemunire, and what the practice has been ? Mr. Peacock had done so, and cited 28 Henry VIII., can. 16. whereby the person pleading a papal bull was held to he subject to pnemunire, yet it bad been held that an ancient bull might be pleaded in order to induce another principal matter whereon to ground a title, without claiming anything from the bull itself. The authority for this was a note in " Bacon's Abridgement." The practice, in eases of prcemunire, was to plead to the indictment, whirls was laid under the statute, as was shown in " Co myn's Digest" and in " Dyer's Reports." Now, an in dictment against the archbishop for not consecrating in the case supposed, would urge that he ithe arc/ bishop) had in curred the penalty i f prietriunire by refusing to perform that rite; to which the plea would be, that the bishop elect had declared his disbelief in the Holy Scriptures ; and that p lea, he (Mr. Peacock) contended, would be a sufficient answer to the indictment. It followed, from various other arguments, thee:putting a reasonable construe ion on the statute of Henry VIII., the premunire was not incurred, it a fair and reasonable cause for refusal to con-urate were given. If the dean and chapter refused to nominate, the crown might do so, but the crown had no power to confirm or consecrate. That was the office of the archbishop ; the meaning of the statute therefore necessarily impied that the latter had wale power of judging of the fitness of the candidate for confirmation and consecration. On referring to the commission it would be found that the archbishop directed his representatives tc confirm only in so far as they found the election good, and it did not command them to confirm at all events and under all cir cumstances. It had been argued that the remedy in the the present case was by appeal. But parties who were not allowed to appear coul d sot appeal; for there could be no ground for such appeal, inasmuch as no decision had been given on the cause, Had such decision been given, then an appeal might lodge, not to the Court of Queen's Bench, but to the court above ; but the complaint here was, not that a wrong decision had been come to, but that the parties had not been allowed to appear at all, there fore they sought their remedy by mandamus, in order that ' by the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench the arch bishop might be compelled to hear and decide on the merits of their oppo , ition. When the archbishop hal done so, and given his decision, the Court of Queen's Bench could interfere no further, for the appeal from the archbishop's decision was to another authority. The case al ready referred to by Dr. Addams, reported by Lord Raymond, was one where a mandamus to the Prerogative Court was refused, on the ground that the person applying was not solvent. Bat, at the same time, it was laid down, that if the Ecclesiastical Court refused to grant letters of administration or probate of • will to I puts', the court of Queen's Bench could, .by men= cempal that man to hear the ate , though not to grant probate. The cue that had been referred te so often, that of" Lucie e. the Bishop of Bt. David's," showed that the remedy 'hien existed wee by appeal to the court above, and not by mandamus ; and other came, quoted on the other side, would be found to have precisely the same tendency. The remedy asked for in the case under consideration, was not by way of appeal, but for a compulsory order from the court to the archbishop, to hear the wags. Mr. Baddeley apprehended that, as far as the case came within the jurisdiction of the court, it stood simply upon the ground that, when an inferior court had turned parties away, and refused to hear them, the court had power to order that inferior court to admit the parties to a hearing. It otherwise, there would he a want and even a total denial of justice, each as could 'not be anti cipated in a kingdom where the rights of the subject were so carefully guarded. All the oppouents claimed at the hands of the court was to be heard. They asked for no decision nor, for any power of appeal; and the court would not: be treated, hesitate to order so much justice to be done to his clients aa they demanded. The case was one where as inferior court had mistaken the law ; and it wasquite compe- tent for their lordships to interfere to compel the performenee of their duty by the officers or representatives of the arch bishop. If, as was shown in the cases cited, that a prohi bition would lie where any tribunal acted wrongly by min taking an act of parliament, why not a mandamus ? His friend (Mr. Waddington) had urged that the court would not interfere in respect to ecclesiastical law ; he admitted that to be so, but the case before the court related wholly to Ithe construction of statute law, and therein their lordships had undoubted jurisdiction. The Queen's Br nch was a court of universal jurisdiction, in so far as the construction to be put upon statute law was concerned. It had been treated and con sidered by the great law authorities, Bacon, Coke, Bolt, and others, as having co-extenerve authority with the Court of Milne, and over the archbishop. Passing, therefore, over the gentian of jurisdiction, he would put ft to their lordships whether the Court of Arches, as a court of hear ing, was justified in turning the opponents away, and in re fusing to allow them to appear. It would be necessary to consider the state of the law . previous to the statute Flenry VIII., namely, whether the arch bishop was empowered to act, or whether confirma tion was a mere mockery. The church had always deemed the rite to be absolutely necessary, and it was held to be founded on Scripture, for St. Paul ( Timothy, 3rd chapter), and other sacred writers, stated and defined the different qualifications of bishops ; and, amongst the rest, that the bishop must be blameless, TOY ortsKoror e y ee a v ese, which, he (Mr. Baddeley) interpreted, meant more correctly, " notliable to any charge." In the Epistle to Titus, the apostle assumed authority in all things in the church, especially as to appointing, sr choosing, or laying hands upon and consecrating bishops ; and is his ex hortation to Titus, chap. i., verse 6 and subsequent verses, the qualities end fitness of bishops and other officers of the church were distinctly leid down by St. Pahl, including the expressions already referred to. It thus was clear, from the authority of Scripture, that the laying on of hands must be preceded by inquiry into the fitness of the candidate The learned counsel quoted a canon of the fourth and sixth Councils of Nice, which decreed that bishops should be confirmed only by the metropolitan, the election being vested in the nearest bishops, "with the assent of all present" at the election; and another canon, decreeing that any bishop who ordained sueh without the consent of the metropolitan, was to be regarded as no bishop. A further canon (the 12th of the Council of Laodicee) fully confirmed the authority of the metropolitan in this matter, and deputed to him power to inquire into the life and character of the bishop elect, and to act accordingly. A similar decree was passed by the Fourth Council of Carthage (canon 1), setting forth in detail the qualities which the metropolitan was to require in etch bishop elect before he gave him confirmation, and without which qualities he might refuse him such confirmation. The learned counsel referred to other decrees, passed by the Councils of Chaleedon, &c., all rendering confirmation of the metropolitan essential to the ordination of any priest as bishops—Mr. Baddeley next referred to various canons set forth in the " Decreturn," and to the glosses upon them, a, confirmatory of his argument, and contended that this rule of civil law which called upon the metropolitan to institute an inquiry into the character of each bishop-elect, prior to confirtuation, had been recognised in England and elsewhere. Dupin, in his treatise, "De Discipline Ecclesise Antique," gave the full weight of his authority to the principle subjecting bishops elect to strict inquiry, as to their life and conduct, on the part of the me tropolitan—an inquiry based, as Fleury in his Institu tion au droit Ecelesissitique further developed, upon evidence adduced by all such parties (lay or spiritual) as are prepared with any charges is opposition, weighed against such evidence as may be produced in contravention of such opposition The learned counsel then applied himself to show that this ancient rule of canon law had been from the first admitted into this country, as part of air ecclesiastical law, and acted upon accordingly. As to the force of the neon lew in England, Mr. Baddeley quoted the minion advanced by Sir W. Follett, before the Mouse et L'oras. strongly declaratory of the principle that the canon law is valid in this country, as part of our ecclesiastical law except where it runs counter to the common law of the hind This was the view also of Sir Matthew Hale and of Sir William 7 fieckstone. . The Lord Chief Justice reminded the learned counsel that, on the other hand, the late Sir Nicholas Tindal, speaking the opinion of twelve of the judges on the occasion referred to, had decidedly laid it down that the canon law was not ad missible as part of the ecclesiastical law, except when formally proved and adopted as such. Mr. Baddeley proceeded to quote from Lyndewode's glows, to show that, contrary to the view of the other side, confirmation by the metropolitan, dependent upon pre vious inquiry as to conduct and character, was requisite in the case of a bishop, as well as in that of an inferior digni tary. This principle was distinctly laid down by John d'Atbo, in the time of Henry 111. The learned counsel then quoted Walton, who, in his " Anglia Sacra," p. 315, gives the case of a bishop elect, in 1277, who was selected by the metropolitan, on the ground of having been a gross plural ist. The King persisting in the election, the question was referred to the Pope, who quashed the election. The same author was quoted so t' several similar cases, in which the archbishop had refuted to abide by the election of the sovereign, and had set aside the bishop chose* by him, on the ground of the personal demerits of the party—an objec tion to the formal election further occurricg in several in• stances. In one case more especially,that ot the election to the bishopric of Fly, the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury aware electionem was laid down in the mast distinct terms. Many more authorities were to be found in that book, which was one of great authority. It clearly showed that persona I eleeti meant not the individual himself only, but that the archbishop exercised the right, according to the canon law, to examine and investigate the character, qualities, and acquirements of the person about to be confirmed. So far back as the time of Edward 111., in the 41st vol. of the Year Books, it appeared the Pope exercised the right to examine the candidate before confirmation ; and it appeared he might refuse confirmation for non•ability, or for other causes. An , act or ordinance, to be found in the 4th vol. of the rolls of ' parliament, in the reign of Henry the V. recited that the King, not knowing how long the cathedrals of this coun try would be deprived of bishops, or left in the state of destitution in which they then were, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining confirmation, commanded the meug• p 'Mans to confirm. That document showed that, in the absence of the Pope, the metropolitan had the right to confirm, and it was valuable, because it showed that confirmation was deemed so neces sary and essential, at that early period, that the church was rendered destitute, owing to the difficulty of obtaining it. That statute was followed by proclamations to carry it into effect. It was enacted in 1415, and in the year following a writ was issued for the confirmation of a bishop. That writ was directed to the Archbishop ot Canterbury. who was commanded to proceed with the confirmation. The writ so issued, in pursuance of the statute of Henry V., required, pretty much in the same terms as at present, that confirmation should he proceeded with without delay, show ing distinctly that confirmation was previous to consecration, and was always looked upon as es , ential. But he was et a loss to know why a more stringent con struction should be put upon the act of Henry VIII. than upon that of Henry V., and the various writ. founded upon it. The term " confirmation" had, previous to the Reformation, a recognised legal mesi,ing, and he duties and rights of the archbishop respecting it were ascertained. Ina book of considerable authority," Martin upon the Rituals of the Church " Mr. Justice Coleridge . What is the date of that book ? Mr. Baddeley : It was published about two centuries ago. The learned gentleman read several passui a, to show that the practice of examining by the metropilitsn was the este. b'ished rule of the church from the earliest periods. Confirmation was prior to the consecration, and was solely at the discretion of the metropolitan. The passages read showed the prat• . ice as to examination and confirm st i an which prevailed in the Western Church prior to the Reformation, and die. tinctly prov►d that each practice prevailed until the statute of Henry VIII., which was sole.y directed against Rome and the interference of the Pope. Looking at the title of that act, which was an act for the nonpayment of inflates, or first fruits, to the Pope, it was plain it was altogether directed against the influence of Rome. The preamble was extremely strong, for it was made up of a statute to restrain and control the papal power. There were many authorities— amongst others •' Bacon's Abridg ment," and " Plowden."—which showed that the preamble of a statute wu most material in construing a statute. After I commenting upon several sections of the 2.5 th Henry VIII., gap. 20, the learned counsel submitted that almost the role object of that statute was to restrain the Pope's in fluence, and not to alter the then existing forms and regula tions of the church of England. Another object was that certain things previously done in the government of the church in this country should not thereafter be done, so that the inflence of the court of Rome should be restricted. The general and indeed sole object of the act was to check the power of the Pope, and was not intended to inter fere with or modify anything else which did not refer to the authority of the court of Rome. There were good grounds for alleging that the penalties of prwmunire were not In force as created by the 25th Henry VIII., c. 20. That statute was repealed in the reign of Philip and Mary, and reessaeted by Mubeth, with an exception with reference to the pmalties far rentunire; which showed that those )41TM N0.441.] LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JAN. 27, 1848. [3d. `~v~J~ 7 7 .2 F penaltleswere now at an end. Lord Bacon, in a treatise, enumerated the several offences and cases of prtemunire in force in his time. He manifestly had the statute of Henry VIII. under his consideration at the time he published his treatise, for he retained the provisions which were in force with reference to the court of Rome, but be altogether omitted all reference to the pen Wes of pi temunire, tole in tarred by the dean and chapter, if they refusel to elect The penalties were repealed, except with reference to the court of Rome, and that appeared to have been Lord Bacon's opinion. If the act of Henry VIII. was historically considered, it must be clear that it was in tended to prevent the influence of Rome in this coun try. But the king could have bad no other object. He had no grounds and no reason for remodelling the ecclesiastical forms previously adopted. He knew that Cranmer, the primate of that day, was an ob sequious servant of the crown. The King, therefore, was well aware he would have to encounter no opposition to his will in that quarter. There was, therefore, no necessity to alter or remodel the former regulations and the usual forms adopted by the church, all that was sought to be attained being to curtail the power of Rome. The canon law as to the eh-tion of bishops was expressly continued by statute. Mr. Justice Coleridge asked if the 32. commissioners had. ever, in point of fact, been appointed to revise the canon law 3 Mr. Baddeley believed not. The ecclesiastical law, he was contending, was not altered ; and, looking at the statute, at its history, and the circumstances of the time, there was nothing in the word "confirm," as therein used, which should lead to the inference that it was intended it should be construed differently to what it had been before in the canon law ; and all that prevailed before, es to the duties of the metropolitan, in respect to confirmation, so far from being repealed by the statute of Henry VIII., was made, if possible, stronger. The act of confirmation, therefore, he contended, remained a judicial act, and must be so treated. From all that ap peared to the contrary, it was intended that the cot firmation should remain w hat it had preciously been; a judicial act in which the archbishop should inquire and adjudicate se to the fitness of the party elected. ,Confirmatien had precisely the same meaning in the act of Henry VIII. that it had in the statute of Henry V. The archbishop in both enactments was treated as the pastor of the church, and in his character as pastor, it was his duty to inquire into the piety, learning, and conduct of thee:: who were to officiate as bishops under him. He would alas submit, that if, by the ancient canons of the church and the general rule of law which prevailed antecedent to the Reformation, from Marina Charts downwards, it was always understood that the right of confirming was an inherent right of the archbishops of this realm ' and if their functions were in this respect com plete, antifurther if those rights were afterward@ continued, except as regarded the interference of the see of Rome, and the rights and privileges of the clergy were confirmed to them, that would furnish to the court a sufficient rule of construction of the statute in question to justify the Making of the rule now applied for absolute. Mr. Justice Erle asked whether there was not a period in our history in which the King claimed to appoint a bishop without the interference of the archbishop Mr. Baddeley was not aware of any such case. Mr. Justice Erie spoke of a period shortly after the con quest. Mr. Baddeley proceeded to refer to the weenie/its of par liament in which the rights of the clergy were confirmed, from time, to time by various statutes, from the reign of John, and contended that this was sufficient, in a case in which a word of doubtful meaning occurred, to justify the court in putting a construction upon it in accordance with those several statutes. There could be no doubt that when the act of Henry VIII. passed, the metropolitan did exercise the right in the mode which he (Mr. Baddeley) contended. Now if the statute was to be construed in the way his learned friends contended for, away went all the authority of the vicar-general's court. Lord Denman asked whether the learned counsel thought he could finish his argument in a short time. Mr. Baddeley was afraid not. Lord Denman thought it would be better then to adjourn the farther argument until to morrow. The court then rose at half-past four o'clock. Kr. Beddeley proceeded to say that be bed, on the pre vious day, cited many eases to show that nominations bad proceeded from Rome, subject to revision and appeal from the people. This view was confirmed in every particular by Thomas:nu', the, authority whieh he had then before him. The privile gee of the metropolitans were—tint, they were to regulate the election of their provinetal bishops. if a bishop were elected without the consent of his metropo litan, the dean and chapter were to pronounce such election null and void. In every case the rights of the people were so far preserved, as to entitle them to a voice in the election. He would refer their lordships to two or three authorities on canon law. The learned counsel referred to the Decretals in the first volume of " Corpus Juris Canonici," and other authorities, to show that in all eases tinier the papal regime a strict inquiry into the morals and habits of the candidate for the episcopate was insisted on, and that this inquiry was ob tainable at the call of the people. In this country also they had had en instance, and that of recent date, iu which this law might have been enforced, and might have been nicer. eery. Until lately the Bishop of Sodor and Mats was ap p inted by the E tel of Derby, who might have exposed him self to canonical censure if he had appointed an improper person, and how could the fact have been ascertained except an appeal ? If this were so so regarded the rights of the metropolitan and people, if such had alweys been the doc trines held, he would himself submit to their lordships that they ought to give strength to the rights of the people by granting the present application. To put an end to any right, where any trace of it could be found, would be a prac tice destructive of all popular privileges. Them were many thisgs connected with a candidate's conduct which the archbishop, merely acting in court, could not possibly know; and if the people were debarred the right of informing him, and of appealing at episcopal elections, abuses must creep in, and improper persons would infal libly be elected. How were the people to exercise the rights if this application were refused? Look at the consequence. A man might be living in the grossest iniquity, and still, as far as the crown knew, he might :be elf phis for the episcopal ollice. The people among whom he had previously mixed, the clergy and laity of the diocese, could alone be the judges of his conduct, moral and religious. A large close of the clergy and laity were committed to the controul of a bishop. Was it not fair and reasonable that those who were so sullect to his authority, and had the power, previous to his appointment, of making know, scandal if any existed against him, should, at all events, have the matter thoroughly sifted. Was not that fair between man and man, and bow muck more so when the question was between spiritual governor and his flock. (Here Sir F. Kelly entered, and took his seat besides the Attorney - General . The learned Fentlem'Rn looked vet) , ill.] He could hardly have thought rt neccatary to have argued this point, hut, as the learned enamel for the mown had endeav3ured to convert the arch bishop into a mere machine, he felt that he could not toe strongly impress it upon their lordships. From the time of Henry VIII. &mei to the present time, such a doctrine as that held by the counsel for the crown had never been enforced; and he asked, was it because charges of scandal had hitherto been tinneoessary, that the rights of the people were to be utterly annihilated ? A great deal had been said about prtemuaire, and the eircumstances under which its penalties were incuned. With respect to that statute, he contended that the archbishop would not subject himself to its provisions by merely allowing fair and reasoneble inquiry. Lord Bacon quoted the various cases of presmunire, but in no case did he allude to the archbishop. He referred to the purchase of a bull from the Pope, but he said nothing with reference to the archbishop; and, there ' fore, it would seem that that dignitary did not incur the penalties, unless he refused to confirm under the influence of the see of Rome. In fact, no indictment could be fremeil against him unless it set forth a charge of undue influence from Rome. lie was ordered to confirm under the king's letter potent, but the command of the letter was, that the election should take place without " suing or procuring " from the see of Rome. So that the fair and obvious construction of the statute was, an he contended, that it would be impossible to indict any archbishop for non-confirmation, unless the in dictment showed that the let or hindrance arose from com pliance with, or submission to, the see of Rome. He was satonished that the learned vicar-general at Bow Church should ever have supposed that a person coming into open court, and calling for inquiry, could have exposed himself to the penalties of this tyrannical statute. They had seen that, previous to the time of Henry VIII., the election of bishops was a judicial proceeding and inquiry. Then, if the statute only said "confirm," it could not be held entirely to convert a judicial act into a ministerial one. The officer was ordered to do a judicial act, but not to convert it into a ministerial one. If that was the object, why have the form then at all? Their lordship, would find in the authorities that confirmati n was part and parcel of the consecration, and therefore it was not true to assert that it formed part of the election. It was quite distinct. Whatever happened on the election could not apply to that which was part of a totally different thing. The election must he held to be a judicial proceeding, iujid no other. His Lensed friend had alleged that the statute of Henry VIII. intended confirma tion and election to be similarly performed. Mr. Justice Erle : If confirmation be a judicial act, the 1 act must either annul or confirm. What is to be annulled? Mr. Baddeley: The election. If the archbishop refuses to confirm the election, there is no other person who has authority to consecrate, and no power on earth can compel hint to perform the act. Therefore, the objection of his learned friend (Mr. Hill) fell entirely to the ground. This view was completely upheld by "Gibmil's Codex," vol. 1., p. 114. The learned solicitor.general fad i•peken of the electiou as a mere t. sham." That struck hies as strange language for a solicitor-general. Mr. Justice Coleridge: Would a mandaaks be to the archbishop to consecrate? Mr. Baddeley : I apprehend not. The learned counsel pro. ceded with his argument. Archbishop Creamer, in his " Form of Confirmation," used words, than which nothing but a sham, and was rather a most solemn act. In the Re gister of Canterbury, there were words used to the same effect, and also in the case of Archbishop Chicheley. The same words were used in the cue of Archbishop Parker. Mr. Justice Erle t is there any instance of the opponents to a bishop's election claiming the right now claimed. Ido not mean a co-elector's, but of any person claiming to object to the fitness of a bishop. Mr. Baddeley was not able to my ; hut at all events wit- MO= ware examined, and opponents were cited. It was no sham inthe time of Wilkins, as appeared in his life, by Strype. The form of confirmation was given, and the prooma was a very detailed one. It was expressly said by Strype that tha bishops took upon themselves the office of • acting judicially." When, then, did the form become a sham, if it was not one in the time of Cranmer, or Parker, or Wilkins? It was not a sham in the time of Charles 1., as appeared from the case of Everett. They had evidence in the time of Bishop Fell, that it was not a sham in the reign of Charles 11., be cause that learned bishop, in a note upon " Clement's Epistle," said that the form of making bishops at that time was the same as existed in the primitive church, and, con sequently, that the people had a will in the election. No word could be stronger than the words used by him, to prose that the form was a reality and • substance. This brought down the subject to 1669, which was the date of Fell's publication. He would not allude to the case of Mon tague, which had been so much argued, except to say that there was a more detailed account of his sacs in Haylin's " Life of Archbishop Laud," than in the accounts of Cattier or Burn. At a later period, Dr. Nichol, in hie " Com mentary on the Book of Common Prayer," a work of great au thority, used almost the same language as Bishop Fell, and laid it down that they (the protestants) did examine the bishop elect according to the canons and the primitive church. That continued the stream, and so it continued to the present time, They had the powers continued according to the primitive times up to the present; and could it be maintained that it was of ao use, seeing that it was appealed to by some of the most learned men in the church against the Romanists, as a proof that the bishops of the church had been regularly consecrated? Of such importance was the matter considered, that in the time of Charles II and William 111., commissioners were appointed by the crown to take care that proper persons only should be selected to fill the office of bishop. And it was their duty to inquire into the character and fitness of the 1 1 bishop elect. And because in recent times opposers had not come forward to urge objections, he would aids if the disuse of • practice was sufficient to abolish it entirely. There were several courts which had, in the course of time, _fallen into disuse, but which were ea far (rem being abolished that they were afterwards revived. His learned friend, Mr. Hill, al luded to the USA of Ruodeil, and asked sarcastically what • state the Irish church must be in when confirmation was not insisted on. But what wan the facts with regard to that case. Why it was well known that lie would not have endured the ordeal of an examination at Bow Church, and therefore the minister of the day sent him over to Ireland to be consecrated. "It had been said that the principles of the Reformation were in volved in this question. lie did not think that was so, be cause there was always ample room for selecting a proper person for the office of a bishop, and in his view of the case the people had always a power of objecting to an im proper selection. But if the principles of the Reforma tion were at all involved in this cam, they were much more identified with those whom he repro seated than the party on-the other elide. For, what was the object of the Reformation ? Not to transfer, surely, from one infallible power to another, unlimited dominion — the end and object remaining the same. The object which the reformers had in view was, to restore to the crown those ancient rights which belong, d to it, and which had been usurped by the Pope, and to leave in possession of the church those rights which also belonged to it. Their design was "to give unto Caesar those things which belonged to Caesar; and to God, those t'.ings which were God's." The object of the act of Henry' VIII. war to pet rid of the appeal to Rome. And if the principles of the Reformation, if practice, tradition, acts of' parliament, and the law writers on the reformation were consulted, it would be found that all concurred in this—that. the crown was restored to its ancient rights, which had been usurped by the church, but that the church retained all that properly belonged to it. lithe principle of the &formation therefore, were involved in this case, it was °abided( of those whom he represented that they were so. How was the pre rogative interfered with 2 Was it in the manner suggested by Dr. Addams in the coarse of his argument? That would be aboard in the highest degree. 'Why, even letter patent u had been revoked by the crown, because unfitness or Lewd had been proved after their grant ; and was the crown to be held infallible in the choice t..if • bishop, or in spiritual things,whilat its fallibility was adroitted in temporal mitten? So far from this being an attack on the prerogative, it was in corroboration ; for the whole question turned upon placing the right of the crown ts appoint for the b e nefit of the church on the best possible footing—namely, by ascertaining whether no unfitness existed in the person chow! te fill so high • trust as that of • bishop. If, therefore, the prerogative was not brought in gao l:UM, the next point to consider was whether ant wrong was done to the candidate for lonfirell:tion by dthVinif that nte until en examination had been instituted tuts Ms Stases. The OM et Archbishop Parker was a mfileinit answer to this luggegiou, f or t horria it wee dcaid•rd that the PROCEEDINGS THIS DAY. The great length to which the arguments it; this case have extended appears to hays had the effect of dispelling, in a great degree, the interest which it had excited—at leaat if any opinion may be formed by the attendance of the mem bers of the bar not engaged in the cause, and the public. On each of the preceding days the court, immediately on its opening, became so crowded that it was d fficult for those who had busint as there to force their way in. To-day, however, many of the seats appropriated to the accommodation of the bar were unoccupied, and in the body of the court the attendance of strangers was not greater than upon any or dinary occasion. Dr. Merreweather, the Dean of Here ford, is still constant in his attendance. On the entrance of the judges, Mr. Baddely resumed his argument in support of the rule, and having shortly recapitulated the points he had ad vanced on the preceding day, and the position he had advanced that the intention of the act of Henry VIII. was to have the right of episcopal confirmation unaltered, except in so far as the see of Rome was concerned, and that the principle of construction, for which he so contended, was fully applicable to the present case, observed that there was another point he would submit—one which was borne out by the whole history and scope of the constitution—viz., that any ancient popular right was not to be interfered with by any new statute, if such statute was capable of being so construed se to leave the popular right uninjured. There were various authorities proving that confirmation we a popular right. Bishops were in the earlier ages elected by the people—then the right was transferred to tae clergy, afterwards to the crown, and lastly to the dean and chapter; no.».11 •bYcinne ea iea voted the right of the peop l e to a voice in the appointment cd teed bishops had been recognised. A writer of some authority, both here and on the Continent, Thomasinus, had, in referring to a letter of St. Cyprian, laid it down clearly that, in the earlier days of the church, the people had always en the right to object to the person proposed for th e office of bishop. There was, however, nothing in that popu lar right to interfere with the rights of the metropolitan, who would have to decide on the fitness of the party. The right of the people to object to improper appointments had always been preserved, whether the power of election was in the people themselves, the clergy, or the king; and it was proper that this popular power should exist, in order to !prevent scandal to the church. Another authority, De Mama, " Do Ceneordia Sacredotii et Imperil," had laid down this doctrine, which was admitted also by Bingham, in his 4th book of " Ecclesiastical Antiquities " But, were the construction of the statute contended for by the other side' to prevail, this popular right would be entirely annihilated. If the dean and chapter were bound to elect the person Lamed in the letter missive, and the people wore not to be permitted to object, then the popu lar right, which had existed from the earliest ages, was gone. This was so monstrous an interference with the whole principle of the popular constitution of this coun try as laid down by Blackstone, who said the people had al ways a right to a voice in the appointment of their rulers, that he could not fur a moment believe it would receive the sanction of the court. Mr. Justice Coleridge : Your argument I understand to be, that the people in earlier times had a right to interfere in the election. . _ . . . . Mr. Baddeley In the earlier history of the church the people had undoubtedly t..e entire power of election, and though the right of electing has passed away from them, the right of objecting has always been recognized. Mr. Justice Coleridge : lut you say further, that the ex ercise of the popular right did not interfere with the rights of the metropolitan to confirm. Mr. Baddeley : Precisely so. Mr. Justice Coleridge You admit the rights of election on the part of the people are loot. Mr Baddeley: They have no longer the power of elec tion, but they have still the right to have their voice heard in the appointment of their bishops, and to object to them for unfitness at the confirmation. Mr. Justice Coleridge: Election and confirmation are two di.tinct proceedings. Mr. Baddeley: Yes, but they are parts of the same thing. Mr. Justice Pattison : When the power rested with the crown, and the appointment was, as it were, donative, do you mean to say that there was confirmation by the me tropolitan ? Mr. Baddeley: Certainly I do, my lord ; and this in shown clearly by the authorities I referred to yesterday. Though the crown eeercised the right to appoint, that right never supereded that of the metropolitan to confirm, which always existed, as did that of th '2 people to object at the con firmation ? Mr. Justice Erle asked a question as to the rite of conse cration, to which Mr. Baddtlely replied that onnsecr►tion had always been the right of the church. But, in all cases, wherever the right of election was vested, the metropolitan was to deter mine upon the fitness of the person elected. Mr. Justice Coleridge: I believe the spiritual jurisdiction is in the hinhop alter confirmation ? Mr. Baddeley : The spiritual jurisdiction is in the bishop after confirmation. It is the consecration, however, which makes the perfect bishop, thnugh he is emitted to ezercise spiritual jurisdiction after confirmation. Mr. Justice Erie Did not confirmation take place by the Pope from the reign of Edward 111. until the statute of Henry VIII ? err. Baddeley : For a very long period confirmation wu by the metropolitan. It wee about the time of Edward 111. that the Pope poreeseed himself of the right to confirm Eng lish hinhops,.and it was the ezercise of that right by the Pope that led to the passing of the statute of Henry V., wnich after describing the inconvenience of the then practice, in vested the right in the metropolitan, thus showing the great importance which then attached to this right of confirmation. Mr. Justice Erle Tne 23rd of Henry VIII. was paned to eosh e the bishops of this realm to consecrate, to prevent the delay , consequent on applying to Rome, and the power given by that act was completed by the 25th of Henry VIII. Mr. Baddeley After papacy returned to its proper chan nel, and there wan one recognised p•pe, he resumed the authority of controlling the appointment of the bishops, but it wan in his capacity of supreme metropolitan. He super seded the authority of the metropolitan, but he did it in his spiritual capacity, and there was still the inquiry into the character and qualifications of the individual appointed. Mr. Justice Erle : Take a period when the pope's power was at the highest, when he assumed the right of coneecni tion as well as confirmation ; was the act done by the Pope at Rome, or did be depute the power to the metropelitaa, by a bull for the purpose? Mr. Baddeley: I believe in some cues the power was de puted to the metropolitan, but when it could be done with out inconvenience, the act was done in Rome by a regular process in the Ecclesiastical Courts there. Mr. Justice Coleridge reraembered there was an historical anecdote with regard ea the appointment of Amelia, that William Rufus sent to the Pope for the pellium far Ameelm, and, on receiving ill, did net give it to Amelia, hat kept it kneed, hie okitr. being to males terms. // V' ca•-..4".c_... I