The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-01 00:00:00

LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE. JAN. 31.

Boulogne and Amiens, 133/8—Luxembourg, 1 —Northern
of France, 1114 —Paris and Lyons, 53,4—Paris and Rouen,
351/4—Rouen and Havre, 17%—Sambre and Meuse, 71i
West Flanders, 1%.

THE CONFIRMATION OF DR.

HAMPDEN.

JUDGMENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH,
(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices
PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and ERLE.)

THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

Soon after nine o'clock this morning the court
began to evince unmistakable signs that some matter
of more than ordinary importance was about to come
before it, and by a quarter to ten o'clock the lobby
and the galleries of the court were crowded almost
to inconvenience. A great many ladies were present,
and the attendance of barristers was almost greater
than on any of the days on which this important case
was argued. Lord Campbell, Lord Monteagle, and
the Bishop of Llandaff, occupied seats on the bench
The Learned Judges took their seats at five minutes
after ten o'clock.

Mr. Justice MILE then proceeded to give his judg-
ment, at which time the utmost stillness prevailed
throughout the crowded assembly. He said this was
an application for a mandamus to be directed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, stating that the persons
who applied for it objected to the confirmation of the
Rev. Dr. Hampden, Bishop elect of the see of Here-
ford, upon the ground of the unsoundness of some of
the theological opinions published by him, and calling
upon him to direct this Court to hear the grounds of op-
position. In support of the application it was con-
tended that the Archbishop was called upon to confirm
the election of a Bishop by the Dean and Chapter,
in accordance with the 25th of Henry VIII., c. 30,
and as stated in the letter missive of the king, within
twelve days, and by the second section, that in case of
such nomination of presentment, the Archbishop should
with all speed consecrate the person so elected by the
Dean and Chapter, without any consultation or inter-
ference of the see of Rome; and, secondly, that in

case the Dean and Chapter should elect the person so
named in tie letter-missive, then that the election
should stand gocd and effectual for all intents and
purposes, and that the person so elected, after certifi-
cation by the king, shculd take the name and be
known As the " lord-elect of the said bishopric ;" and
that the validity of the said election having been
shown to the king, that he should signify his: com-
mand that the election of the said bishop be confirmed,
and should require the archbishop to invest ai.d
consecrate the person elected ; and, further, by sec-
tion 7, if any archbishop, after any such election or
nomination should be signified to him, should refuse
to confirm or consecrate the person so elected or non-
elected, within twenty days, that he should be liable
to the pains and penalties of prastninure. They con-
tended upon these sections that they had, neverthe-
less, a right to be heard. Upon a review of the
statute, it appeared to him that the power of nomi
nating to a vacant bishopric was given to the king,
and that the archbishop had no authority to judge
whether the king had properly exercised that power
or not. In default of election, the king nominated
the archbishop to confirm, and made him liable to
preminure if he did not confirm within twenty
days ; and in this case it was not intended
that the archbishop was empowered to sit in
judgment upon the propriety of the king's
nomination. The King being supreme, the arch-
bishop was commanded to consecrate, whether he
approved of the person or not, and the Dean and
Chapter were expressly commanded to elect the per-
son named in the letter of the King. This being the
' case, there came the question, whether these parties,
in the meaning of the words, were to be entitled to
oppose the confirmation, and whether the bishop
should adjudge whether the person should be con-
firmed or not. According to the tenor of the statute,
as he construed it, it seemed that the Archbishop was
bound to confirm, notwithstanding parties might op-
, pose. The election and confirmation were declared
to be good to all intents and purposes, and, therefore,
it was a contradiction of terms to say that an election
which was declared of this nature by the statute was,
nevertheless, incomplete and inconclusive. Confir-
mation showed in reality that it was consistent with
this provision, and the statement that the person SO
elected was to be styled the "Lord Bishop Elect
comes under the same definition. The statement in
the preamble brought them to the 23d section, from
which he gathered that the object of the Act was to
take away from the Pope any power in the appoint-
merit of a bishop ia this realm: it stated that great
inconvenience had arisen from the delays and
exactions of the Pope, and that, therefore,
provision was made for the King to nominate bishops
for the future, and to be empowered to call upon
the Archbishop to consecrate the person so elected
after the like manner of divers archbishops in ancient
times, and it was a remarkable fact, that the person
so elected was to make oath of fealty before the com-
mend to consecrate was issued. The command of the
King was inconsistent with the right here contended
for on the part of the Archbishop, to decide whether
the party nominated shall be confirmed or not. If
analogy were consulted, no reason could be suggested
why the nomination of the King by letters should
not be absolute. It was no doubt deemed right to
preserve the technicality of citation. The citation of
all opposers to appear was materially relied upon from
an early period—at least from the reign of Queen
Elizabeth—as also the power of the bishop to inquire.
These grounds were, in his judgment, untenable. It
was said that confirmation possessed a technical sense,
to be found in the common law, and that the right of
the people to oppose the confirmation of bishops had
been exercised throughout the world, and that the
opposers had a right to demand judgment upon their
objections. On the other hand, it was contended that
the people had not the right contended for. The
question then turned upon the construction to be put
upon the statute. The Learned Judge having recited
the principal points of the statute, proceeded to say that
references to history led him to the conclusion that
the object of the statute was to give the Crown the
sole power of appointment, and that the business of
the Dean and Chapter, and the Archbishop, was merely
ministerial. The Act meant that nomination should
take place as before the passing of the Act, and the
Parliament of the day, no doubt, intended that the
word "confirm" should be taken in its usual sense—
in the sense he had stated. If the confirmation hid
been more than a mere matter of form, there was no
doubt that it would have been exercised, but no one
instance had been put forward in which the right
here contended for had been used and admitted in
any country or in any time. The industry mani-
fested had been great. Foreign as well as English
legal and other writers had been referred to, yet only
one case had been cited, namely, the opposition to
Bishop Montague, during the time of Charles I.; but
no decision with respect to that case had been re-
ported. It appeared it did not result in anything.
Two or three other cases were cited, but 110 result