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

T HE S U N,

and the market is consequently somewhat unsettled.
In white shirtings a few sales have also been made,
without much change in value. White jacconets
are dull, and the transactions unimportant. In gray
jacconets also sales are quite insignificant, and mada-
pollams are in less inquiry. Grey twills are still
wanted. _ .

Glasgow fabrics are in a worse position than
before, or as compared with the staple Manchester
cloths, stocks of the former being much more in
excess of the wants of the market. Holders in some
instances showing an anxiety to sell, prices have
generally given way, and the demand is of a very
languid description. Book muslins have been disposed
of to some extent at the low prices of 1 to 1-Irs. for No
1, and 3 annas consecutive rise for Nos. 2 and 3. A few
sales of common lappets have been effected by submit-
ting to lower rates. Mulls of common and middling
qualities. Nos:3 to 5, are in fair inquiry, but no sales
have been made. Scarfs are neglected. In other
light goods nothing of moment has occurred.
The sales of printed goods are small, and confined
to a few lots of zebra dresses, and such prints as are
likely to suit the Affghans, now shortly expected.
Printed handkerchiefs are still very saleable.
Turkey reds are also dull. Twills have been sold
at 6 annas per yard, jacconets at Co.'s rs. 6.3 per
piece, and diagonal printed 20 yards schinders at Co.'s
rs. 8-12 per piece.

LONDON,

THE CONFIRMATION OF DR.

HAMPDEN.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 1.

(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices
PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and EELS.)

TUB QUBBN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTIZBURV.

The following is a fuller report of the Lord Chief
Justice's speech than we were enabled to give in our
afternoon:Edition of yesterday :
Lord DENMAN said—This is an application for a
mandamus to the Archbishop of Canterbury to hear
certain parties in opposition to the confirmation of the
Bishop elect of the diocese of Hereford ; and their
affidavits state, in substance, that a citation had
been issued, requiring opponents of the confir-
mation of the Bishop elect to appear with any,
objections they might have to urge; that they had ac-
cordingly appeared with their objections in due form,
and that their counsel had not been permitted
to do more than to argue in favour of their
right to be heard. The affidavit then states
that the vicar. general then proceeded with the
confirmation, and declared that no opponents had pre-
viously appeared, and that opponents were contu-
macious for not appearing. It is also further stated
that the objections tendered were founded on doctrines
contained in certain books written by the Biahop
elect, which, it is alleged, are repugnant to the arti-
cles of religion ; and the applicants contend that the
confirmation which followed was, by reason of that
refusal, null and void. Various arguments have been
used to show that a writ of mandamus will not lie in
the present case. I have no doubt that in this case
the mandamus sought for ought not to issue ; and,
even if I were at all in doubt on the subject, I should
think it better nut to issue the writ than to run the
risk of abridging the clear and established preroga-
tive of the Crown in a matter of such vital import-
ance, still more to the best interests of the people than
of the Crown itself. I admit that there has been
established a primil facie case of wrong, where, after
citation issued for persons to appear in opposition,
and after proclamation to the same effect, persons so
appearing were prohibited from stating the grounds
of their opposition. The proceedings by which op-
posers were invited to appear, and then had their
mouths stopped at the very outset, and were excluded
the court, clearly reflected no honour on those ss ho
instituted the form. It is an absurdity, only exceeded
by the further proceeding of declaring those very
persons contumacious for non-appearance, who had
actually appeared, and,
,claiming to be heard, were
nut heard. That these things are anomalies there
can be no doubt ; but they do not constitute a case
for setting aside a clear and established rule, founded
on a distinct Act of Parliament and settled by in-
variable practice. By whose authority have these
proceedings been sanctioned in the present in-
stance, and of whom is complaint made ? In the
first place, of a prelate entitled to the un-
bounded respect and confidence of all men—
of that of the venerable Primate of England,
who has been a bishop during a quarter of a century,
and Archbishop of Cauterbury during nearly a simi-
larly long period, and who must, therefore, in that
long career, particularly as metropolitan, have taken
a leading part in the confirmation of almost all the
prelates in his province now on the episcopal bench,
and who, in the most trying times, has ever displayed
the utmost uprightness, prudence, moderation, and
circumspect care, whose mind and understanding are
not impaired by age, but matured by experience and
reflection. The other party of whom complaint was
made was a person whose mind, learning, and judg-
ment, are as well established as is his high character
in >dl other respects. These parties, so conversant
with the law and custom S in this matter, relied not
upon the abstract justice or propriety of the particular
form ; on the contrary, they lamented the continu-
ance of that empty form ; they admitted it was strange
and scandalous; but they relied on the express
terms of the Act of the 25th of Henry the VIIIth.
The Learned Judge here recited the provisions of
that Act, so often cited already, as to the proceedings
in electing and confirming bishops, and then went on
to say that the first observation that occurred to him
in reference to this Act was, that no form of confir-
mation whatever was set forth in it or in the preced-
ing Act on the same subject, the 23d of Henry the
VIIIth.; which latter statute, after denouncing
former exactions of the Pope, by means of delaying
the confirmation of bishops named by the king en-
acted that for the future, any person presented to the
Court of Rome as bishop of any English see, and
whose confirmation by Papal bull should be unduly
deferred, should be consecrated by his archbishop, and
be then and thereafter taken to be, and be, bishop of the
see to which he had been named. In this statute the
word confirmation does not once occur. This statute
Ras kept alive by the 25th of Henry the Eighth. The
statute in question was framed in that spirit of
jealousy of Rome which was at that time severing
one by one all the ties between this kingdom and that
see, but neither King Henry nor any other king was
likely to leave the means of making bishops imper-
fect or uncertain for the time to come. That was one
of the objects of the statute, as put forth by the
preamble ; and it has been asked whether such a king
was likely, at the same time that he deprived the
Pope of his veto, to give it to one of his subjects ?
The only answer which has been made to this ques-
tion, I confess, I have heard with surprise and regret,
because as I caught it, and I believe I am correct, it
was a severe reflection on that great father of the
En ;fish Protestant Church, Archbishop Cranmer.
I understood it to have been said that the King
knew how obsequious an archbishop he had
in Cranmer, who would readily comply with
the King's will. True, Cranmer was not a
blameless man ; far from it; for shortly before
his death he betrayed a great want of firmness ; but
I may be permitted to say cot greater than that ex-
hibited by the apostle whom the head of the church
selected from among his brethren as the rock upon
which that church was to be built ; and his death at
least might have atoned for this fault, and have saved
his memory from such observations. I must say, I
did not expect in this court of law, and in the pre-
' sense of so many learned lawyers, and in the pre-
sence of so many of the faithful sons of the Church of
England, to hear the name of Cranmer introduced
for such a purpose, and I think it shows great excite-
ment of mind existing somewhere on the present
occasion, whether in the clients or in the counsel who
made the remark. I will say that I feel it is doubly
the duty of this Court on such a question as this
to take care that it is not led away by
such impressions, or yields too much to the
authority of these ecclesiastical powers, which, in my
opinion, it has; been the duty of this Court, in all ages,
to watch with peculiar jealousy. If Henry relied on
Cranmer as upon a mean and servile Churchman, who
would truckle to his caprices, he was wholly mistaken
in his man. The Archbishop, on more than one oc-
casion, thoroughly thwarted the monarch on points
which the monarch was especially bent upon carry-
ing. He opposed him in the matter of Anne Boleyn,
and, despite Henry's utmost anger, manifested him-
self the unswerving friend of the unfortunate Queen ;
and again, on the matter of the Six Articles, both
in and out of Parliament, opposed the monarch,
though it was perfectly well known that the latter
was determined upon the extirpation of all views and
doctrines contrary to his own by torture and death.
But Cranmer was not immortal, and other less tract-
able metropolitans might have arisen, even suppos-
ing his character had been what it has been repre-
sented. Hen ry was no stranger to the obstinacy of
religious faith,. From experience he knew its strength,
having seen his own well beloved Chancellor lay his
head on the block rather than admit his supremacy.

He had witnessed constancy, too, in many of the
clergy, and he was no doubt well read in that page of
Church history which recorded the firmness of
Thomas A'Bec.kett. It is, therefore, inconceivable,
by any ingenuity, that Henry should have allowed
any doubt to r amain as to the prerogative which he
proposed to establish. Besides, Parliament itself had
made complait its with respect to the proceedings of
the Archbishcip on this subject. These considerations
are surely entitled to great weight. The arguments
on either side, in this respect, rest upon the meaning
to be attached to confirmation, as the word is found
in the statute. The word, however, does not occur
alone, but is. connected with the proposed elec-
tion. The w cards, " should confirm the said elec-

tion," plainly indicate the duties devolving on the
metropolitan. When the election was real, two
things require, to be certified to the Archbishop—
first, that the election is duly made; and secondly,
the identity of the person who brought the certifi-
cate, it being :further desirable, no doubt, that the
Archbishop, b; v his benediction and gracious recep•
tion of his new colleague, should inspire the people
with confidence and respect for him. But it is said
he is to cite 8 11 persons to oppose ; and it is a ques-
tion whether be is bound to open a court of this de-
scription. I -would ask, can there be any necessity
for such a coat; se when the person to be confirmed
has already bom a ordained a deacon, on which occa-
sion all people .have been called upon to pronounce
whether they suspect him of any crime or offence,
when, if anythilng was alleged against him future pro-
ceedings were deferred until inquiry should be made ?
The same per! on must have undergone the same
ordeal on beini r ordained a priest ; and, when bishop
elect, he corn es with the additional testimony of
parties well gu atified to judge of his fitness in all
respects; for, yin ce the provision of that statute, he
brings the recomi nendation of the Crown—and is that
to pass for nothinl ? Why is the Archbishop, then,
to commence an i nquiry ? Why is he to call upon
all the world to c ome forward and oppose ? If the
election were in. the people I could understand the
argument ; but ' het e it has passed away from the
people, and been vested for ages in the Dean and
Chapter on the r sconamendation of the Crown. The
limitation of i time imposed in the two great
processes of election, and confirmation —of
twelve days in the former case, and twenty