The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-31 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 31, 1848.

T; he terpregg.

The it foe New 'loath Wales, Yen Dlesben's Land, and SIN
Zealand will be made up on the 'rennin of the 31st hammy.
The mails for the West Coast of Arne... and Medeirs will be insibe
up on the evening of the 31st January.
The West Wm Mails, 'minding Bermuda, Nassau, Hayman.
1/0,,d0e,, Now Orleans, Vera Crux, Tampico, and Porto Rico, sag
exeluding thaw for Madeira, Jar Sou Carthagena, Santa Martha,
Panama, West Coast of South Arnerbm, and tit. Juan.cte.
Nicaragua, will be made up oti the morning of the 2nd February.
311 e overland mail.
In for lamina, Mahn, (dream, the Lonna tinitoris.
Ifgy
ceTion, a* Hong-Kong, and China, 'onSouthampton.
„TA 'be merle up on the morning of the 3rd February.
The mails for the Brazils, the Kern Plate, Monte Wee, Fanims.
suco, Bahia. Madeira, and Buenos Ayres, will be Naha n• al Ow
emning of ths 4th February.
The mans tar Vigo, Oporto, Liahon, ifellebra, Cadiz, and Gibraltar
will be made up on the morning of re 7th February.
flu overland elosoil mall% Via Marseilles, to the Mediterranean
ggyl,4, Aden, Ceylon, India, lien Kong, &a, will be made Up On the
evening of the 7th tannery.

TO COROZSPONDUITS.
• Adrertiormeots iotooded foe The Ram... Loam Imanlag paper. so•'
olke.lo.lltoworbootewet. be Two eeloolg Go tea day of ►olelleauoo.

FllOll WiTRIII AT•IArII/03 Raiont.
T
DAY— 000r0,03. Past 9 ; *Rm.. 21 ra15.340110.
T•4I —Yams& 3 sir past 11 Altarsoso, mts. past I.

LONDON, MONDAY, JAN. 31.
We apprehend;' there can be little doubt that
the Court of Queen's Bench will give judgment t
morrow, in accordance with the wishes of all persons
who dislike ecclesiastical disturbance. We noticed
during the course of the discussion at the bar, almost
all the principal points which were urged on either
side; and we have seen nothing to change our original
opinion, that the act of confirmation is essentially
ministerial, and that the writ of mandamus must go,
if at all, on the ground. that some essential parts of
the ministerial duty were omitted by the commis-
sioners. As, however, the applicants for the rule
naturally repudiate this construction of the matter,
and claim to impose upon the Archbishop a substantial
judicial duty, the court remembering that the writ of
mandamus is a writ of discretion and not of right,
will probably not grant it for the mere purpose of
correcting an informal proceeding. If, contrary to
our expectation, the rule should be made absolute, the
question will be by no means settled. The Archbishop
and his officials will in that case have to make a re-
turn to the writ, in which the constitution and powers
of the Vicar-General's court will be formally set out.
This return the opposite party can either traverse in
point of fact, in which case the issue must be tried by
a jury, or demur to it as insufficient in law. Ii may
be assumed that no matter of fact will come into ques-
tion in the case. The effect of a demurrer would be
to raise for the consideration of the court all the ques-
tions which have already been presented to their con-
sideration, as well as any additional points which
might arise on the return. The matters already dis-
cussed would, of coulee, not be re-argued at length :
but the court would again decide as before, subject to
the revision of a court of error, which cannot
be called upon to consider the judgment on
the motion for a mandamus. In such a case the ques-
tion would, no doubt, however the Exchequer Cham-
ber might decide, be carried to the 'louse of Lords;
and if the supreme tribunal decided that the return
was bad, the archbishop and his officials would at
last be compelled to hear the objections of the oe-
posers. Some of our readers may recollect a juvenile
work in which a child who wants a piece of bread is
obliged to go through all the preliminary processes
necessary to the production of it. First he is sent to
the blacksmith to get a ploughshare—then to the
farmer, who is to plough and sow—the miller and
baker perform their duties in turn—and now, it is said
at the conclusion, you may have the piece of bread
and butter. The processes of law are longer than ,
those of art and nature ; and more than one revolu- ,
tion of the seasons would take place before Dr.
HAMPDEN'S opponents would get their bread and
butter ; or compel the reluctant archbishop to read
the Bampton Lectures.
In the expectation that the judicious kindness of
the Queen's Bench will save them from such lingering
anxiety, we should be glad to satisfy them that some,
at least, of the grounds on which they rely are alto- !
gether untenable. Mr. PEACOCK, who, certainly nut
from any want of learning or ingenuity, made the
only short speech on eitht r side, contented himself
mainly with two clever fallacies, in the form of a
reductio ad absurdum. Would a bishop, he asked,
be compelled to confirm blindly, if the bishop elect
was to his knowledge under the lawful age of thirty
years? If not he must have a discretion; and if he
has a discretion in that case, he must have it in the
case of Dr. HAM P DEN. We answer that the arch•
bishop must in all ca-es confirm a person lawfully no-
minated and elected. A person under the age of thirty
years labours ander a statutable disqualification, which
cannot be alleged to exist in Dr. llsmenee's case. ,
A nomination of such a person by the crown would
be simply unlawful and void ; nor would it be neces-
sary for the archbishop to establish the fact of the
disqualification by any judicial inquiry. Once satisfied
of the fact, he might simply treat the royal mandate
as a nullity, and dec.ine to take any steps to carry it
out. On a return to a 'mandamus to proceed to con-
firmation, or in defending an indictment either at
common law or under the statutes of prmmunire, it
would be sufficient to show that the nomination was
illegal, and therefore not entitled to obedience. Dr.
HAMPDEN'S disqualification, if any, is only prospective
and contingent on a possible judicial decision, which,
as we contend, no tribunal has power to deliver. In
refusing, therefore, to confirm him the archbishop
would disobey the law. In refusing to confirm a
minor, he would only disobey an illegal and void com-
mand.
The disqualification by age was no doubt selected
by Mr. PEACOCK as the most certain bar to a legal
appointment. We are not aware that any other
statutable disqualificat on for the episcopal office exists,
though we presume that the appointment of a woman
would be void at common law. Mr. BADDELEY
doubts whether the crown could not nominate a lay-
man ; and we are not prepared to solve his doubt.
If so, the archbishop would be bound to confirm his
election ; and the resistance to the appointment must
be reserved for the consecration. The same remark
will apply to a great part of the arguments in favour
of the mandamus ; awd especially to the difficulty
suggested by Mr. PEACOCK, and repeated by Sir F.
KELLY, as to the proper course to be adopted by an
archbishop if the bishop elect should refuse to answer
in the proper from the questions prescribed by
the consecration service. !Without anticipating legal
difficulties which have not yet arisen, we will under-
take to guarantee any archbishop against the curse-
quences, who shall refuse to complete the consecration
of any bishop who may be so perverse as to unswer
the question " Do you believe the Scriptures, &e-
-" No, I don't." And to the inquiry, whether he will
perform the duties of his office—" No, I won't." But,
however this may be, we cannot see what it has to do
with the confirmation. It is as easy to imagine such
eccentricity where an archbishop has confirmed of his
own choice, as where he hue been compelled to per-
form the ceremony by law. In ether case the diffi-
culty does not arise till consecration, and the conse-
cration, with its contingencies, are at present in no
sense before the Cum tof Queen's Bench.
It is to the freedom of consecration also, and not of
confirmation, that the long string of prect dents ad-
duced from ecclesiastical history by Mr. BADDELEY
apply, if they apply at all, lie showed that the
metropolitan had irequentiy exercised the right or
power of inquiring. into the character of bishors pro-
posed for consecration; but it did not appear that the
investigation formed a part of the ceremony of con-
firming. An archbishop might satisfy himself that
the candidate pessessed the requisite qualificatiocs by
personal examination, by private inquiry, by com-
mon rumour, at least as effectually as in the court of
his vicar-general. But Mr. BADDELEY must have
meant to contend, if his argument had any bearing
on the rule under discussion, that after full inquiry
and investigation, possessing. perhaps an intimate
personal knowledge of the faith and morals of the
bishop elect, the Archbishop might still be compelled
against his will to hold a formal trial, on
the motion of any voluntary actor in a suit,
of the competency of the candidate of whom he
had already fully approved. The Archbishop or
CANTERBURY appears before the court as approving
or not disapproving of Dr. HAMPDEN. If he has a
right to form a judgment in the matter, why should
not the court assume that he had formed it before the
day of confirmation? No authority was brought to
show that he was bound to form it on that day-through
his VICAR-GEN EILSL.
But we arc, in fact, here arguing on a false assump-
tion. Mr. BADDELEY deduced the supposed power of
the archbishop from his character of metropolitan,
whereas he only confirms by a commission from the
crown. Sir F. KELLY (on the authority of the case of

" DICAB v. Lord BROUGHAM) argued that wherever a
duty is cast on an archbishop be brings to the per-
haseanceof itallthe privileges and powers of the archi-
episcopal character. But he forgot, and Mr. B&DDait
forgot, to state that the confirmation of bishops's not
exclusively assigned to the archbishop of the pro-
vince. Any other prelates may be lacted by the
crown for the office—e. camahistve proof that, where
the archbishop is in font minded with the duty, his
power is derived treat, an miteslied by, the royal coin-
mini.= The choice given y to the crown as to
the to whom the commission may issue, en-
• supersedes all arguments in favour of the
metropolitan rights of the archbishop, derived either
from canon law or from the practice of ecclesiastical
antiquity. In the case of " Dime v. Lord
Brougham," if the jurisdiction in bankruptcy had
been given in the alternative to the Lord Chancellor
or the chief magistrate at Bow-street, it could never
have been contended that it was meant to enforce it by
the peculiar powers inherent by law in the great seal.
By keeping the questions of confirmation and con-
secration separate, our renders will also be assisted in
forming a judgment of the long and eloquent spinals
which were made by counsel to the common sense and
religious feeling of the judges. It was urged that it
was dangerous to religion that the church should be
compelled to receive unworthy bishops. But argu-
ments from expediency and policy can only be ad-
mitted in courts of law when the legislature has been
silent on the point under consideration. The fact
that five or six English bishoprics, and all the Irish
bishoprics, are at present given by letters patent,
without election, and therefore without confirmation,
may be considered as a legal decision that the judicial
functions claimed for the archbi.hop are not indis-
pensable in the appointmen of bishops. Even in
the present case, if the Det an of HEREFORD had
kept his promise of refusing to elect, the
Crown would have appointed Dr. HAMPDEN,
and the scene at Bow Church would never have
taken place. If free confirmation is essential, it
must be essential in all cases. In a large
number of cases the law has decided that it is unne-
cessary. If it is binding in the remaining instances,
it must be so by virtue of some positive law, and not
from any legal rccoeuition of its general expediency.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL well showed in hie reply
that the possible absurdities which had been deduced
by Sir F. KELLY and others as the consequence of
treating the forms of confirmation as fictions, were by
no means confined to that stage of the proceedings.
Sir F. KELLY admitted that the election is a mere
ceremony and shadow, notwithstanding the religious
formalities with which it is celebrated. The confir-
mation is properly the completion of the election, and
there is no presumption that it is intended to bear a
more substantial character.
We believe that the Auchtemrder case, to which
the Arrottnee-GENERAL referred for the first time
in his reply, will be found to bear more nearly on the
real question between the advocates of the respective
claims of the church and the crown than any other
which has been cited. The point where a real diffi-
culty may hereafter arise is the same which occa-
sioned the disruption of the Scottish Kirk, the inter-
ference of the civil power with the conferring of
orders. In the present case, no such difficulty is
likely to occur; nor can it ever affect the question of
confirmation. A bishop translated to a new see re-
quires confirmation, but not consecration—a test
which proves that the power sought to be thrust
on the archbishop is not that which, in all cases,
has been considered exclusively spiritual, of conferring
degrees in the ministry. It is in the utmost degree
inexpedient to stir without necessity cluestione,
involving difficulties in their solution, which have
hitherto been latent. In the present case, the oppo-
nents of the bishop elect have opened the whole ques-
tion of ecelesiasti( al claims, when they were not in
substance disputed. They might at least have waited
till the crown had nominated a bishop, and afterwards
failed to find four existing bishops willing to conse-
crate him.

TIIERE can no longer be say doubt that the friends
of free tradewill be called upon, when parliament meets,
to struggle against the adoption of a retrograde policy
—to oppose a strong effort to compel ministers to fall
back into the old wheel-tracks and ruts of protection.
The report of the acting committee of the West India
body contains the declaration of war. This attempt
to unsettle, the deliberate judgment of the legislature
is sought to be justified on the plea that "the exist-
ing sugar law cannot be regarded as a deliberate act
of the parliament—much less of the country. It was
proposed at the close of the session, when all parties
wero exhausted by the virulent debates on the
cora laws, and when five hundred members
of the House of Commons and a great ma-
jority of the House of Lords were absent."
This is empty cavilling about forms. The subject
had been investigated in repeated committees, had
been debated over and over again in both houses
during several sessions. The five hundred members
of the House of Commons and the majority of the
house of Lords knew what the ministerial bill pro-
posed, and could have been there to oppose 1. had they
deemed it mischievous. Their absence was equiva-
lent to a vote that protracted inquiry and discussion
had convinced them it was a safe measure.
We do not, however, object on this account to the
policy which the anti-free-traders have resolved to
pursue. We do not hold that any vote of parliament,
either deliberate or rash, ought to put an end to
discussion. We hold that the attempt to repeal
a measure unjust or hurtful in itself may warrantably
commence the very moment it lies become law. But
the agitators against the new law must be prepared
to take the risks of such a mode of proceeding along
with the contingent advantages. The patties now in
the field to obtain a repeal of the existing Sugar
Ditties Act cannot, therefore, complain of any un-
certainty in the sugar markets consequent upon the
Imeasures they arc taking, however injurious to their
pockets. And they must make up their minds to see
the whole question re-opened. Ministers, in so far as
Lord Joins RUSSELL'S and Earl GREY'S replies to
certain deputations and Mr. GIBSON'S declarations at
Manchester enable us to judge, willtake up the ground
of keeping the act unaltered. Bat it is open to any
independent member to move, that if the act is to be
altered the alteration shall consist of substituting
immediate equalisation of the sugar duties for a gra-
dual process of equalisation spread over five years.
A good deal might be said in support of such a
proposal. The present agitation shows that the pro-
tected sugar interests are employing the term of grace
allowed them, not in honest strenuous efforts to pre-
pare themselves to meet the unlimited competition of I
free trade, but in intrigues to avoid it When 1851 I
comes they will not at this rate have taken one step'
to place themselves in a condition to compete with
foreign sugar-growers on equal terms. What is the
use of granting them time to prepare, when they will
not use it ?
They have acted in this way from the beginning.
They never admitted the possibility of free labour
being enabled to compete with slave labour
under any circumstances until their slaves were
emancipated. Then, indeed, they declared that by
means of a large continuous immigration of free la-
bourers of tropical race they might at some indefinite
period be able to produce sugar at less cast by free
labour than by slave labour. But the apathy and in-
difference with which they have pros:-ed this point,
compared with their desperate efforts to uphold ex-
elusive duties, show how little in earnest they were.
IThey have moved heaven and earth—they have
made overtures to every industrial and to every poli-
tical interest in succession, to obtain allies in their
struggles against free trade ; but their efforts to obtain
free immigration have been desultory and variable.
In the report of the standing committee of the West
India treaty, already alluded to, some suggestions
upon emigration from Africa to the West Inoia colo-
nies are printed, and said to have been submitted
"on several occasions" to Earl GREY. They contain
in substance the views advocated with great zeal and
ability by Mr. NIACGREGOR LAIRD as long ago as
1810 (if not indeed earlier), and which were pressed
upon ministers and members of parliament by that
gentleman, in concert with several leading West
Indians, at least as long ago as 1811. Mr. LAIRD was
in earnest ; he bad even the moral courage to debate the
question at an anti-slavery meeting in Exeter Hall.
He stuck to his point. But he was not backed by his
West Indian allies, who would only urge the
matter in a dainty diplomatic fa-hion in the colonial-
office ; who shrunk from public and parliamentary
discussion ; and who, instead of earnestly and continu-
ously labouring to promote their plan, turned away
in assembly to run after every new phantasy—to'
seek labourers from Malta, from India, or anywhere.
If they have not had a steady, ample immigration of
free labourers from Africa for years back, it is the