The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

*he erprt*S.

MAILS
The ark lea Aft alt Uster, hears. Cedr sod Oferskar
kr be are im ea re erre 17te
Na
fir Irer Ude Berme% Nam; HOW%
Ikabstai,Nsw o=Ners Or, ad Pere Luo, sad
kiln tree tar ll ream, lama. Seale !Maria,
err% Pam" Rat Orr et Nab sal It. howls-
nemellsi, ell be Ears op ea re et tke Mk Dumber.
The ride kr lOW Nadi sae as Under
Meer yr borer up le dee w=re Mk
re weerterl mike frrells, Nair Oraer Sr kora Wok,
MaameOrilehelsikeneadasakte=r Sour
reptas.
urge seer revers ettbr,
Ike ~kir deer silo Illossillsk to the Ileditasissa&n,
=Adin.l=mdit, Lem lea., yr be rads up ea re
stele
re and far Net Soak W. Tea row's lAal, me New
rekr will be err up ea dr maks d re ra Deniaber.
re ark kr re Barb, re New Pie r larele ram Persama.
=Z ak* Motabs. sae Sense ire. wal Ds real ei ea e's
etre re Jemmy.

TO COItiTSIONDZ
lasorkstl far Tim IlmormsllTS. Lades ..eeits:=.d ....e
Its std. dia. ile• 341••11•11.41111•1. by do 7 am.

MOH WIVITS AT LONDON 11111)01.
Ton Dal—ltarstit6, mta. put 6 ; Mtersem W.. put R.
To.Yonsou—no 1 um put 1, After." I; ott6. put 7.

LONDON, TUESDAY, DEC.I4.
THE answer which Lord JoHN RUSSELL has given
to the representation made to the government by ten
of the bisnope has put an end to all doubts as to the
immediate elevation of Dr. Hastrior.ts to the epis-
copal bench. The protest bears the signature of
some of the most respectable of the bishops, and is
drawn up with moderalon and propriety, but there
can be little doubt that the remonstrant prelates have
acted injudiciously in their interference; and the
superiority of argument, as well as the power to en-
force his own views, remains with the Premier. The
letter of the bishops remarkably illustrates the
timidity, and regard for prejudice, which are peculiar

to their class, and which, on their own showing,
form their chief motives even for a step which they
may reasonably consider • bold one. It is not
the alleged heterodoxy of the Bampton lectures, or
any supposed unsoundness in Dr. HAMPDEN'S views,
which calls forth their interferenoe. As Lord Jonr4
RUSSELL forcibly observes, " Your lordships do not
state any want of confidence on your rat in the
soundness of Dr. IlAnenetes doctrine. It is the
supposed " apprehension and alarm which have been
excited in the minds of the clergy" which form the
I professed, and, we have no doubt, the real ground of
the remora -^*. Whether the ten bishops share in
this alarm do not find stated.

and apprehension we
If they are apprehensive for the faith, they are more
apprehensive of the danger of pledging themselves to
reject Dr. HAMPDEN'S doctrines; if, as we suppose,
they do not share in the alarm, they are afraid of the
responsibility of meeting, denouncing, and quieting it.
It is moat characteristic of the episcopal idiosyncracy,
that the truth or falsehood of the charge which they
use as an argument against the election never seems
to strike the protesters as a material question in the
case.

Even when they proceed to assign a reason for the
alarm of the clergy, they can find no better ground for
it than that the University of Oxford has affirmed
by a solemn decree its want of confidence in the
soundness of Dr. HAMPDEN% doctrine." Lord JOHN
ktussEtes answer is conclusive: "In these circum-
stances, it appears to me that if I should withdraw
my recommendation of Dr. HAMPDEN, which has
been sanctioned by the Queen, I should virtually
assent to the doctrine that a decree of the University
of Oxford is a perpetual ban of exclusion against a
clergyman of eminent learning and irreproachable life,
and that in fact the supremacy which is now by law
vested in the crown is to be transferred to a majority
of the members of one of our universities." It is
strange that English bishops, reigning, as they
claim to reign, with uncontrolled power over
' the orthodoxy of the church, should, at the same
time, decline to express any opinion hostile to Dr.
HAMPDEN, and recognise, by implication, a spiritual
authority to determine doctrine, as residing in the
easnal usemblage of clergy and laity who form the
convocation of Oxford. Ds the bishops, does the
Bishop of LONDON mean, that he would allow a vete
of the Oxford convocation, or of the Cambridge, to
overrule his discretion in granting or refusing a
license to preach to any clergyman in hie diocese ?
What is meant by a solemn decree it would be diffi-
cult to say. A measure was proposed to the convo-
cation a a penal kind. There was no accusation, no
defence, no selection of qualified judges, no personal
responsibility in those who concurred in the sen-
tence. All that can be said of Dr. HAMPDEN,
as afterwards of Mr. WARD, is that a popular assem-
bly, of which the majority could not possibly under-
stand the questions at issue, passed a vote against
them on the authority of others. The " alarm and
apprehension" existing in the minds of the clergy at
present exactly represent the " alarm and apprehen-
sion" which then influenced the majority of convoca-
tion. In some the feeling was honest, in others fac-
tious ; but it would be well for bishops and others to
understand, that alarm and apprehension, while they
enfeeble the judgment of those who are affected by
them, are no grounds to determine the conduct of
others.

Lord Jorn RUSSELL very properly declares that
Dr. HAMPDEN'S reputation is to be taken into consi-
deration, as well as the rights of the crown. It is a
base and cowardly proceeding to sacrifice any indivi-
dual on the charge of unpopularity. The minister,
being satisfied that the accusations against Dr.
HAMPDEN are unfounded, does not require to be told
that such accusations exist. If he requires a confir-
mation of his judgment, he may refer to the dissen-
tient bishops themselves. It is impossible to suppose
that, in taking so unusual a step as remonstrating
against the exercise of the undisputed prerogative of
the crown, they would have shrunk from denouncing
any unsoundness of which Dr. HAMPDEN was
guilty. They are witnesses to his orthodoxy, inas-
much as they are enable or unwilling to point out
any flaw in it ; and they are therefore especially
bound to discountenance the " alarm and apprehen- I
sion" which they do not share.
A lady who had a strong disinclination to enter a
field frequented by horned cattle, frequently declared
that it was unfair to charge her with timidity. She
was not afraid of a bull, bat afraid of being afraid,
and therefore anxious to keep out of risk of fear. The
bishops go a step farther. They are not afraid of Dr.
HAMPDEN'S doctrines, nor even afraid of being afraid
of them—they are only afraid that those opinions will
affect the clergy with alarm. Why the clergy should
be afraid of oodoxy if Dr. HAMPDEN is right, or
how the bishops have escaped the alarm
at his heterodoxy if he is wrong, they do
not explain. But the worship of prejudice,
the perpetual anxiety to know " what will
people say," the affectation of sharing in popular
error—all these weaknesses, prevalent as they are in
all departments of public life, are nowhere so domi-
nant as on the episcopal bench.
One, and not the least prominent, of the remon-
strant prelates, has already often shown his sympathy
with alarms in which he did not himself participate.
When a number of active writers were alarmed at the
latitudinarian practice and tendencies of the English
church, and strove to restore a stricter discipline, and
secure it by renovating the forms of antiquity, the
bishop of whom we speak encouraged to the
utmost a movement of which he never before
had felt the necessity. Before long, however,
a larger and loader body took " alarm " in
its turn. The people at large were scandalised
at innovations, even when they professed to be sanc-
tioned by antiquity. The hereditary horror for
popery revived, and the new sect became universally
unpopular. Instantly, the bishop veered raund. The
clergy, who had adopted by his wish the new-fangled
ceremonies and costumes, were discountenanced by
him, and those who had more prudently disregarded
the popularity-hunting caprices of their diocesan,
were complimented on their good sense and sound
judgment It is difficult to suppose that the present
interference is dictated by deeper convictions. It is
supposed that the church is in a fright. Its leader
does not examine the causes of the panic, bat as-
signs its existence as a cause for flattering and obey-
ing it
There is no great danger that the power of the
crown to nominate bishops will be allowed by any
minister to be brought into doubt or dispute. Grossly
immoral and improper appointments, such as some of
those which were made a century ago, would cer-
tainly justify a remonstrance on the part of any body
which could claim to represent the church. But, if
such an objection was urged, it would be the duty of
the remonstrants to pledge their own belief to their
accusations, and to support their allegations by proof.
A men hearsay, secondhand complaint, that some
third person was alarmed at a proposed appointment,
might justly be disregarded by any minister. In the
present time it is quite certain that a substantial
charge, fairly brought home, would be successful.
We by no means think that an accusation relating
to matters of doctrine ought to meet with equall;
ready hearing, even when it is supported by the
authority of those who urge it. It is the weakness
of the clergy of all wets to seek to narrow and limit
the dogmatic terms of communion, to 'substitute a
formal agreement in verbal propositions for a practi-
cal harmony of religious feeling, and to disconnte-
nines subtlety, novelty, and speculative boldness. It
is from the large admixture of secular influences in
its government, that the Anglican church has practi-
cally refrained from even further limitations of the
creed which it admits, than those which so unfortu-
nately have excluded many kindred sects of
nonconformists from its body. It ought to be the
endeavour of those who represent the most powerful
of the secular agencies which affect it, to take care
that it does not suicidally restrict itself still farther.
A minister who appointed a bishop who really dis-
agreed with the substance of the Anglican faith,
would be an unfaithful and oppressive trustee of the
power which he holds; but he must judge for him-
self in every particular instance, and not assume that
every one who has been accused of heresy is a heretic.
In the present case, we have no doubt that Lord
JOHN RUSSELL conscientiously believes that the cheep
against Dr. HAMPDEN is unfounded; and we think
he is perfectly right in that conclusion. We should
therefore have approved of his adherence to bib reso-
lution, even if the bishops who wish him to relin-
quish it had made themselves responsible for the
charges of heterodoxy, which they state to be cre-
dited by others. To mere gossip about alarm and
apprehension, which the remonstrs.nts do not pretend
to share, and to insinuations about the "solemn" de-
cree of the convocation, to which the bishops would
be the last to defer, the Premier has given a reply of