The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

pawed by the college on the. 6th of April, litres
Hie grace was likewise of opinion that it was very
reasonable that the moral qualiAmbom of the candidates
should be freely dimmed by the assembled electors prior to
the election. Also that ascreey throughout the proceedings
of the election of fellows was a statutable obligation: that tie
introduction of a classical work into the examination was

consistent with the new ordinance; that he saw no reason
for objecting to the exprOsee et the candidates being de-
rtsoyed when the electors had *tidied themselves by each
extuninalica "who shall appear to them to be of the
greatest merit, and most fit to he • fellow of the college."
And, lastly, his pas* &Med to hold a visitation for the
purpose verlfoqg littestatemente of the petitioners, as WO
saw no sufficient/emu to do so. Dissatisfied with the
i t of dienrchhishop, on the ground that they had
not hissed in reply to the warden and fellows, and,
ooneeQuently, that the archbishop was not in a position
properly to determine the matter in difference, the peti-
tioners then applied to this court for a mandamus directed
to hit e" "W"Petling him to re•hear the case.
At thiltzoin4 yeateiday morn,
Mr. in the first place to go through the
answer of theigaLlen and fellows in order to set them
riOt before the world with regard to the aspersions
which had been cast upon them by the statements put
forward by counsel in moving for the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice —ln other words, Mr. Bovill, you
wont a newspaper answer to go forth to charges which
went before the world through newspapers. Wu it
not that the time of the court wee very precious
there would be no objection to hear you ; but ivaamuch as
the views which the warden and fellows might entertain
with respect to the points in dispute are quite irrelevant
to the matter to be decided by the court, they must refuse
to allow the answer of the warden and fellows to be gone
into. The simple question before the court was had the
archbishop heard both parties ?
Mr. Bovill—But your lordships permitted Mr. Coleridge,
when moving for the rule, to go into a variety of matters
which were no more pertinent to the inquiry before the
court. The allegations then put forward went before the
world, and the warden and fellows feel that they ought to
be allowed an opportunity of setting themselves tight.
The Lord Chief lustier,— You must be aware, Mr. Bovill,
that it is not always possible for the court to decide at once
what is relevant and what is irrelevant in a counsel's state-
ment. The court has frequently to listen to counsel for
some time before we can determine the real point before we.
Mr. Justice Crompton—What we have to decide is whe-
ther upon the affidavits on the file of the court the arch-
bishop an be held to have determined the matters in the
petition
Mr. Bovill—But who is to be the judge of that! The
archbishop says he has determined the question. On both
, sides there has been a statement in writing, and therefore
what I am here to contend is that your lordships have no
power to compel the archbishop to receive a reply from the
petitioners.
The Lord Chid Justioe—But supposing that the answer
of the warden and fellows sets up entirely new facts,
rarely common justice requires that the other side should
t be allowed an opportunity of replying to those facts.
Otherwise sea the matters be said to lave been fully beard
and determined!

Mr. Bovril would submit that there had been no
failure of natural justice. The only thing the archbishop
was requested to do was to hear the petitioners by counsel,
and it was now admitted on the other side that his grace
could not be compelled to do so. There was no pretence
that the archbishop had not given his construction as to
the meaning of the ordinance.
Mr. Smith submitted, on the other side, that the arch-
bishop's decision did not go the full length to which it
ought to have gone.
After some further arguments, it was agreed upon the
suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice, that the arch-
bishop should rehear the case—ell imputation upon
the warden and fellows being disclaimed, the present
application being withdrawn, and the affidavits removed
off the files of the court.
The Lunl Chief Justice raid he was exceedingly rejoiced
that the Warden and Fellows had consented o accept the
suggestion tlius thrown out, because otherwise it would
have beau the painful duty of the Court to have directed
that the rule should be made absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)

IN RE CHARLTON.
The bankrupt was a solicitor of Garden-court, Temple.
Mr. Chalky, on his behalf, applied to the court under
the following circumstances. On the 2nd of March his
Honour bad made an order for the discharge of the bank-
rupt from custody, on his finding satisfactory security.
This had been done ; Mr. Norton, who, represented the
detaining creditor, wee satisfied with the sureties ; and the
bond was now prepared.
Mr. Norton expressed his assent. He was content per-
sonally, on behalf of his clients.
The bond was accordingly given, and the discharge or-
dered to take place.
ns M'EVILLT.
The bankrupt was a saddler, et Great Portland-street.
This was the certificate meeting. It was stated that the
bankrupt had died since passing his examination. In con-
sequence of Lis death, policies which were in his order and
disposition at the time of his bankruptcy to the amount of
Mi., would become payable, and the estate would be bene-
Mewl to that amount. - -

The usual order warn made, adjourning the meeting
nine the.