The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-28 00:00:00

THE SON, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 28, 1845,

of Parliament. He maintained that, consistent with
the exercise of the great power of the prerogative,
might also exist the rights ot the Church and ot the
people. It had been argued that this was an infringe-
ment of the prerogative ; he quite agreed that from
the Crown, and the Crown alone, must come the ap-
pointment of every bishop, but there was nothing
irreverent towards that prerogative to suppose
that there should be the power in the
high dignitaries of the Church to inquire into
the fitness of the person so nominated. What secu-
rity would there he, if there was not such a power,
that the whole bench of bishop might not be filled by
Roman Catholics, if the throne should ever be filled
by a person holding such opinions as were held by
James 11. ? Suppose that an Aat was to be passed
making it illegal for any lay patron to present any
person to a living, and vesting them in the Crown,
could any person say that such an Act would put an
end to the right of the Church to inquire into the
character of all such persons previous to their ordi-
nation ? But such was the argument used by the
other side. The 233 Henry VIII. only provided that
the appointment of bishops should vest in
the Crown, but it was not to •be supposed
that the right of the Church to inquire
previous to confirmation was superseded by that Act.
With respect to the real meaning of the statute, he
did not know a better way to discover it than by
referring to the modes of confirmation under that Act,
which had taken place shortly after the statute
passed; and it would appear that in the Ist of Eliza-
beth, the year when the statute was revived, the pro-
ceedings at the confirmation of Archbishop Parker
were precisely, step by step, the same as was now
contended ought to have been taken in the case of the
late proceeding towards the confirmation of Dr.
Hampden. His Learned Friend Dr. Bay ford had
thrown some doubts upon the power of the Arch-
bishop to compel the attendance of witnesses. lie
apprehended that the Court at Bow Church was
the Court Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop, and as such
would have had power by some means or other of
doing justice to the parties. He felt convinced that
the Archbishop had the power in every Ecclesiastical
Court under him of compelling the attendance of
witnesses necessary to obtaining justice between
contentious parties. Some objections had been
urged in this case to the remedy by writ of man-
damus ; it had been said no mandamus would
lie, because this was a matter of spiritual
jurisdiction ; that might be so, but the ground en
which they came to this court to exercise its powerful
jurisdiction by way of mandamus was, because this
Court would cause justice to be administered by its
superior jurisdiction, wherever an inferior court,
having a certain jurisdiction, refused to exercise it.
The Learned Gentleman, having adverted to the
parties in the case, and the importance
of it to them, concluded a most excellent speech by
expressing a sincere hope and firm conviction that
the Court would make the rule for a mandamus ab-
solute.

The Attorney-General rose to reply, when
Lord MINMAN observed that he and his brother
judges were not prepared to say that he had the right
to reply.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted that he had
the right to reply. The present proceeding was an
attack upon the prerogative of the Crown ; and this
was the Crown's court, and he apprehended that it
was the undoubted right of the Crown officers to
have the last word.

Lord DENMAN observed that the Crown was not
the prosecutor in the present case, and he knew of no
precedent for the adoption of such a course.
The ATTORNE r- GENERAL remarked that there well
might be no precedents because there never had been
an instance, that he recollected, in which the Crown
was called upon to strike a blow at its own pre-'
rogative.
Lord DENMAN wished to hear Sir F. Kelly upon'
this point, although he considered it a matter for the
discretion of the Court whether they would hear the
Attorney-General's reply or not.
Sir F. KELLY opposed the right of the Attorney-
General to reply, on the ground that the Court should
not increase and extend the prerogative of the Crown,
which it would in giving effect to a claim of this kind,
where there was no precedent for the claim being
allowed.

Lord DENMAN said that he and his brother Judges,
upon consideration, had thought it would be the
most convenient course to hear the Attorney-General
in reply.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied at some length,
and concluded by imploring their Lordships, as early
as consistent with justice, to dispose of the case.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.