The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-15 00:00:00

TILE BISHOP ELECT OF HEREFORD.-1

Sir F. Kelly moved for a rule to show cause why a manda-
mus should net issue, directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury
and to Dr. Burnaby, hie vicar-general, commanding them, at
a court to be holden, to bear the objections tendered on be-
half of the Itev. Win. Webster Huntley, Clerk, Vicar of
Alberbury ; the Rev. John Jebb, Clerk, Rector of Petentow,
both in the county of Hereford ; and the Rev. Win. Frederick
Powell, Clerk, perpetual curate of Cirencester, in the county
of Glouce ter, against the confirmation of the election of Dr.
Hampden to the see of Hereford, and to hear and determine
on such opposition, and the articles, matters, and proofs
thereof. The application involved a question of the highest
importance, which had been raised in the late proceedings in
the confirmation of the Bishop elect of Hereford. Their
lordships were aware that on the election of any individual
to a vacant see, by canoe d' elire to the dean and chapter of
such see, the sovereign issued letters patent commanding the
archbishop of the province to proceed to a confirmation of
the person who had thus become bishop elect, and, by the
law and usage which bad now prevailed for many centuries
without variation, upon these letters being received, the
archbishop proceeded, either in person to by his vicar-gene-
ral, to hold a court, at which the business of the confirmation
was transacted. He should have to bring under their lord
ships' attention the various forms and matters constituting
I that proceeding; but perhaps the most important of them
Il was, that at some reasonable and convenient time before such
court was held, it was necessary to publish a citation either
to certain individuals or generally, as the case might be,
calling upon all persons to come in and oppose, if they had
any ground for such opposition, the confirmation of the
bishop elect. The bishop elect had to propound a petition,
setting forth various matters, and to prove, amongst other
things, his fitness in point of learning, doctrine,
piety, conduct, birth, and other qualifications, for
the office ; and it was then the duty of the court
solemnly to make proclamation, calling upon all
persons, who should have any ground of opposition, to come
in and oppose the petition of the bishop elect. Upon the
non-appearance of any one opposing the bishop elect, they
were to be declared contumacious, and the archbishop or his
vicar-general was bound to examine into the matters of the
petition, and when satisfied that they had been proved in fact
and de jure, a solemn decree was to be pronounced confirm-
ing the election of the bishop, and a decree was issued to the
archbishop of the province, requiring him to enthrone and
consecrate the bishop. The question which their lordships
would have to determine, under the cinumstanceswkich had
taken place with respect to the Rev. Dr. Hampden, was
whether the practice which had prevailed under the canon-
law, which for that purpose had become part of the common
law of England for many centuries, of citing all opposers,
and if they appeared hearing, discussing, and deter-
mining upon evidence, among other things, the fitness and
competence of the bishop elect to be confirmed, was meant to
be a mere useless form—a mete mockery and delusion ; and
whether, if the clergy and others in the diocese deeply inte-
rested in the character and fitness of the person to be ap-
pointed bishop over them came forward, and in due form of law
offered opposition to such confirmation, and proposed to verify
it according to the usual terms and modes of the law—the ques-
tion was, whether all that was to be set aside, and whether,
under the statute of Henry VIII., although it was necessary
that these forms should be gone through, the court was pro-
hibited from inquiring into the very matter which they had
assembled to inquire into, and was compelled to reject all op-
position—to deny a hearing to all opposers, and, fit or unfit,
without inquiry or evidence, to proceed at once to confirm
the individual as bishop of the diocese, When he bad drawn
their lordships' attention to what had taken place on this
occasion—to the forms pointed out in ell the books
of authority of the proceedings on such occasions—when he
should have referred the court to the statute which was
passed for a purpose wholly foreign to the business of the
confirmation, and the necessary and proper inquiry into the
character of the person to be confirmed ; and when he should
also have directed their lordships' attention to the authorities
on the subject, which were all uniform, it would be seen
that not only was there no authority for saying that the in-
quiry ought not to take place, and that the parties opposing
should not be heard, but that it was manifest from a long
course of authority on the subject, from the text writers on
the canon and common law of this kingdom, that not only
must these forms be observed, and the inquiry take t lace,
but if there was a failure in any. part of the proceeding, the
confirmation of the individual in question would be alto-
gether void in law. On the part of the opposers, all had
been done which it was necessary should be done in order to
put Dr. Hampden on proof, sad the court upon the examina-
tion of bis fitness. Ica the affidavit on which he made the
application, it was etated that on the 28th of December last,
Dr. Hampden had been elected by the dean and chapter
of Hereford as bishop of that see—that the election
had been duly certified to the crown, and that the sove-
reign had issued the letters patent to proceed to the con-
firmation of the bishop elect ; that a court was accordieitly
held for that purpose at Bow church, on the Ilth of Jan.
inst., that the citation had been duly published calling on all
persons to come forward to oppose the confirmation, that the
persons making the affidavit " being of opinion and of mind
to urge objections" against the confirmation, they had pre-
pared written grounds of objection, which were signed by an
advocate of the court, and presented by a proctor as the law
required. The proclamation was made by the apparitor-
general, be having been called upon to do so by the vicar-
general; and he prayed the attention of their lordships to
the words used, which appeared to be the same as those
adopted uniformly—be might say, without a single excep-
tion—for many centuries—certainly, however, since the
revival of the act of Henry VIII. in the reign of Elizabeth.
The learned gentleman here read the proclamation, calling
upon all parties who had any opposition to offer to come ter- I
ward and make their objections, and they should be heard.
Mr Townshend said he appeared for the Rev. Mr. Huntley and
the other two clergymen, and exhibited the proxies, stating
that the objections were in writing, were in the form of a
libel or plea, and whilst be was in the act of presenting them
the vicar-general said, " We are acting here under a man
date from the crown, issued in accordance with the act of
I Henry the Eighth, and we conceive ourselves bound to con-
firm without suffering anyopposition." Dr. Lushington, one
of the assessors, was also of a similar opinion, but Sir J.
Dodson, the other assessor, had some doubts on the point ,•
two out of the three, however, thought they were bound
_... __