The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-27 00:00:00

THE METROPOLITAN COMMIS-
SIONERS OF SEWERS.—(THIS DAY.)
A Court of Sewers was held this morning at No.
23 Committee-room of the House of Commons; Lord
Ebrington in the chair.
A report of the sub-committee appointed to advise
as to the direction of the Ordnance survey of the
metropolis was read. The report stated that Captain
Yolland, of the Ordnance Department, had applied to
the committee for instructions as to the point where
the survey should be commenced, and the committee,
considering the low sanitary condition of the popula-
tion in the poor districts of Westminster, and coupling
that circumstance with the low level of the \Vest•
minster district, and looking also to the proximity of
the district to a county adapted for the application of
sewerage manure to market garden purposes, re-
commended that the survey should be corn
meneed, and a block plan at once prepared for, the
district bounded by Bridge-street, Westminster,
Great George street, Birdcage-walk, Constitution-
hill; Hyde Park-corner, Knightsbridge, Brompton-
road, Fulham-road, :Park-place, Milmates-row, and
the river line from Milman's-row to Westminster-.
bridge.

The report was unanimously adopted.
A supplementary report was presented, setting
forth that the survey had already been commenced,
and efficient accommodation received for the officers
engaged upon it.
This report was ordered to be entered on the
minutes of the Court
A number of cases of defective sewerage were
brought under the consideration of the committee, in
the course of which it transpired that from
ignorance the poorer classes of the metropolis
were greatly averse to the drainage and sewerage
of their districts, but the good which had
resulted from the operations of the surveyors in
various parts of the metropolis was daily removing
the erroneous impressions which prevailed on the
subject.
The surveyor's report on flushing sewers and
cleansing courts and alleys intimated that since the
last Court foul deposits had been flushed away from
the sewers of Westminster, Surrey and Kent, ai.d
Tower Hamlets, to the extent of 70,826 feet and
10,656 loads. During these cleansings the surveyors
had recourse to Sir William Burnett's deodorizing
fluid, and now they were about to test the fluids of
M. Legoyns and Mr. Herepath, of Bristol. In the
parish of Marylebone several courts and mews, which
had hitherto been neglected, were beginning ,to be
paved and cleansed.
The report was adopted.
The Court then adjourned till this day fortnight.

THE CASE OF THE REV. DR.
HAMPDEN.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
and Justices PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and ERLE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

The arguments were resumed at the sitting of the
Court.

Mr. BADRL ET proceeded.—He said—Yesterday
he called the attention of the Court to episcopal elec-
tions prior to the passing of the statute of Henry the
Eighth ; he thought by going back to the period an-
terior to the Reformation that their Lordships would
the better arrive at the intentions of the Legislature
of that day in passing the statute in question ; and
that they would the better arrive at the legal meaning
of the word " confirmation," which, he contended,
being a legal term, meant " confirmation " according
to law. He then passed to the statute, and con-
tended, that every impartial person must, after a
careful perusal of it, be of opinion that the object of
the passing of the Act, and the intentions of the King,
as evinced in history, was that the Act was simply passed
to abolish the power of the Pope in this realm. He
then submitted—and he submitted the point now
with confidence—that from the time of the passing of
Magna Charta up to the latest proceedings by the
Legislature in matters ecclesiastical, that it was the
intention of the Legislature to continue those privi-
leges to the clergy which they had formerly possessed
—namely, the power of electing those who were to
be placed over them, and who in all things apper-
taining to them exercised full spiritual jurisdiction.
He apprehended that the whole scope and history of
the constitution of this country showed that no
popular right such as this- should be interfered with
by legislative enactments, and he should, he con-
fessed, be content to try the Act of Henry VHI. by
the test of the popular voice ; for Bacon, and other
eminent writers, held that it was an inviolable prin-
ciple in our constitution, that unless the popular
voice consented to any public matter it could not
be decided in the affirmative. The choice of the people
was always respected. Thomas Sims, an eminent and
curious writer, speaking of the election of bishops,
said, in words which deserved to be immortalised and
handed down to posterity, that persons appointed to
the office of bishops should be free from all ill-repute,
and if scandalised and of bad life, that these things
should be inquired into by a competent tribunal, and
that he should be rejected iti-'he were found unfit to
take so high an office. if the people in the olden
time were not entitled to vote for bishops, they were
entitled to oppose their appointment. He could cite
numerous other opinions to the same effect; but he
would not occupy the time of the Court at tco great
a length. Bingham, in his work on Ecclesiastical
Antiquities, book 4, c. 2, spoke of the right of the
people to object to their bishops. Blackstone, and in
fact every ancient writer, agreed in stating that the
people possessed an inherent right to elect their she-
riffs and other persons to whom the aafety.of their lives
and property were entrusted, and he implored the
Court to transmit those rights to posterity unim-
paired.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE asked the Learned Coun-
sel if his argument was not this—that the people had
a right to elect their bishops ?
Mr. BADELEY said it was. He did not wish the
Court to introduce anything that was new, but to
preserve what was old. He contended that the Dean
and Chapter were compelled to elect those whom the
Crown nominated; but that this did not affect the
right of the Metropolitan to refuse to confirm or
the people to object. He contended further, that if
the election was a " sham," that the confirmation was
a sham also.

Mr. Justice ERL said there must always be a con-
secration.

Mr. BADELBY said the Metropolitan only pos-
sessed the right to consecrate, and he might refuse to
do so.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired how bishops were
confirmed when the Pope exercised power in this
realm ?

to the Metropolitan to
Mr. BADBLEY said the
carry Pope
out generally
ceremony,senta bullbut
Metropolitan.
sometimes the Po
by a process in the Ecclesias-
tical
Rufus
bCss
eeo l
gua
eroi
dftt s
otoafhf
et
phsaetpi
al Pope,
home,x 1 i
give it up until he hadimDQadße treermmi
Mr. Justice Co
terms with
thethe
PLoepaer.ned
uezentrtomin
Rhiosintoer,hanthdatrefluVsieldliatmo
Mr. BADELEY said
the consequence if the this
was So. What would be
might
abas bishops ? There might
ospe,ople were not allowed to
tpmerilsiotnatse argesaiidnisntgtheinir age-
object to persons Pm
be
mightmany.trn neen
tt thingsa abuses
un
soewswhichknown
creep
e e
yeretgosought to be appointed, and
pow , -.
into the Church if those alone
dioceses, where theyonwl
boldly coming forward
acquainted with these
at the solemn ceremony of
things were prevented from
confirmation, and stating grounds
to grounds of opposition which
were, perhaps, known them isThere was no
more solemn ceremony than that of confirming a
bishop, and the right of the people with respect to it
A bishop was placed
ii.n improper person was
ought not to be lightly treated,
over the clergy in his diocese ; nay, more, he was
empowered to ordain ; and
the bishop might
mere rights that ordi-
narily
appointed, was it not possible that -and man, he asked the
fill the sacred office of
n ordainhrgy
mspueebrnss persons se
subsisted
Lookingb disqualifiedetvi ee na tmt
atone
Court, if a person, who knew or ,
errors of doctrine,
or
r of
permitted to come for-
ward to prove them if he could ? If the Court
decided scandal,
was n
chine.
againstinthothet eitsolsiufbe o
ieng of the mandamus, they
would decide that the Archbishop was a mere ma-
f a person to be appointed
a bishop,
[Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who h ,
as been absent two
days, owing to indisposition, here entered the Court ,
and took his seat in the Queen's Counsel box, under
Mr. Badeley.3 Now it did not appear that the
Archbishop was subject to prremunire. Bacon, though
he spoke of the penalties that attached to the receiving
of bulls frau the Pope, said nothing about those high
officers of the Church being subject to such a penalty.
Lie was at a loss to know how, looking at the statute
the Vicar-General could decide that those who ap-
peared at Bow Church could render themselves liable
to prremunire, or how those who heard them ren-
dered themselves liable to those penalties. This was
clearly the opinion of Lord Bacon. The meaning of
the act was, whatever the election might be con-
sidered, merely judicial, and was required to be done
" in due form of law.
Mr. Justice BaLE—lf the act of confirmation is a
judicial act, what 15 to he confirmed or annulled 9
Mr. BADELE y —The election. Henry the Eighth,
with all his tyranny, did not take away the power of
the bishops either to confirm or net.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired if the tempo-
ral;t les were restored before or after consecration ?
Mr. BADELEY replied not till after.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE further inquired if a man-
damus would lie in this Cour•-, addressed to the
Archbishop calling upon him to proceed to the busi-
ness of consecration ?
Mr. BADELIii apprehended not. There were seve-