THE HEREFORD CASE.

Anglo-Maori Warder, Volume 1, Issue 3, 9 May 1848, Page 3

THE HEREFORD CASE.

(From the Times, December 20.) The nomination of Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford, the remonstrances of more than half the Episcopal Bench, and the memorial of Dr. Mereweather, Dean of Hereford, will fix the public attention upon the most difficult and delicate part of our existing constitute aal arrangements. Tne present form of Episcopal Election, which dates from the reign of Henry VIII , is well known to Churchmen, stillbetter known, perhaps, to Dissenters. Its character and operations come out so strongly in the opt ning clauses of tile Dean'B memorial, tbnl we will n >t stop to describe them. Even in a laud of " legal fiction*,'' where nothing can be done in a slrairrlit-furward manner, the religious independence and the morality of the nation have alwiys revolted from the apparent mixture of the absurdity and deßpotUm which chararterizes the highest act of the Church, and the most sacred function of royally. The theories on which this >ingular proceeding is founded or explained, are becoming obsolete and almost unintel ifriblp. The spirit of religious liberty, independence aud equality, which has lately been making lapid strides, and has stolen many a mirch on the Establuhed Church, now in turn otters her a sort oencouragement by disclosing her chains. So it happens that ebb of opinion has left this harsh law high and dry on the drilt of old custom. There it stands, daily more singular and unaccountable, and apparently only warts the first touch of innovation to disappear. For our part, we think that law a good law w Inch works well. It is difficult to conceive, in this instance, any comproarise which shall better meet the ikeorks or the facta of the question. The State, it is true, has usurped. Or overruled, all the functrons that appertained, or were alleged to appertain, to the Church—but it is still the Constitutional theory that the Church and State are one, and that the Sovereign is the supreme Judicial and Executive organ of that double common weal. Besides that power which results from popular delegation, there is also a sort of patriarchal disrnrty in the British Crown. As for the facts of the case, no one doubts that our Bishops are a much better and safer body of Ecclesiastical rulers than would be obtained from any other conceivable mode of ekctron. Who is to choose if not the Crown ? The Dean and Chapter; All the Clergy of the Diocese? The Laity ? The Communicants ? We should answer—- " Heaven forbid !" to any of these alternatives ; and everybody who has thought five minutes about the matter will anticipate our objections. The only imaginable improvement or re-adjustment of the existing practice is, that some sort of scrutiny or appeal might be provided. In tovor of such an appeal it may be alleged that the Chureli and State are no longer identical, in fact, while the Legislature contains only a majority of Churchmen. But its working would undoubtedly be troublesome and dangerous. The best remedy or preservative for the existing law is. that it should be tenderly, carefully, aiid even anxiously applied, Instruments powerful lor strength, or for edge, should be u<ed w.ih gentleness and skill. A statute which gues to one man the rights of the Crown, the Clergy, and the People, should be administered in behalf of all these parties. The Prime Minister has to act for (he Do in and Cuapter. The Queen first requires and corr mauds them, by the faith and allegiauce by uhieh they stand bound to her Majesty, that they elect such a person as may be devoted to God.and useful and faithful to her Majesty and her kingdom. This implies an rtercise of judgment. Her Majesty, however, cuntrolsani e\crci>eotjudjment, byrecommendingwith sovereign authority a person who fu.fila these conditions, bhe acta for them and on their bek.'l. This, we conceive, implies at least the rtcouim.ndatmu of .i r .r,o i against v;l.um the Clergy do not Icel ally guieral and decided rjßujc.viiiious objection, That would. b e a

mockery of the law. It has, therefore,, with very rare exceptions, been the wholesome usage of the Crown to pay a considerable degree of deference to the judgment and feelings of the Clergy, and the better informed members of the Church. The letter of the law is tyrannical indeed, but it has been interpreted with mild* ness and discretion. In no other way could it have stood op long on the Statute book, and in no other way wH| it stand long. The De«in of Hereford refers to the vote of censure passed on Dr. Hampden by the University of Oxford, and plead? for that right and liberty of conscience which will be "trampled to the very dust" by a compulsion to elect it person still under thit censure. On this ground, he prays either that her Majesty will recommend some other pers'Hi, or that she will graciously relieve the Chapter from the necessity of proceeding to the election, till she has been pleased to submit Doctor Hampden's publications to " the judgment either of the two houses of convocation of the Clergy of the province of Caniei bury, which is now sitting, ur of the provincial Council of Oishops of the same province, assisted by such Divines as her Majesty, or the sdid Provincial Council shall be pleased to call, o of some other competent tribunal which her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to appoint." Now, wo think, that from all the documents that have appeared en this subject, upon every side, including Dr. Hampden's own letter to the Minister, an unanimous opinion may be inferred, that there should be an immediate appeal to some such tribunal. Dr. Hampden and his friends have vehemently insisted, from the first, on the absence of a fair and deliberate trial. They have alleged the irregular, the partial, the personal, the tumultuous, the political, and even the illegal character of the censure. They have pleaded that no articles were exhibi;ed, no propositions selected for condemnation, and no specific heresy or unsoundness alleged. They huve objected specially to the persons whom they conceived to be the moving parties in the affair. On the part of an accused, and still more of a condemned person, such complaints are entitled to respect—and even if they are argued wi'h unnecessary violence and personality, that will be excused in one who may reasonably suppose himself injured. Lwd John Russell throws himself into that side of the question. He also disparages the voteuf Convocation, denies it any just weight with the Crown, and calls it "an unworthy proceeding." On the other hand, the persons to whom Lord John Russell alludes, as "the leading promoters of the movement against Dr. Hampden, '' and to whom Dr. Hampden himself particularly ascribes his '* persecution," themselves Btrongly objected to this mode of action, and desired that the objectionable writings should be fairly tried before the Board which the statutes had provided for such rases. The Heads of Hou-es, among whom Dr. Hampden himself eat and voted, during all that afFdir, and to whom he now referred with exaggerated regard as be* iug the virtual government of thejUniversity, ohose a relereuce to Convocation out of tenderness to Doctor Hampden* They, however, were the only persons who approved this course. The persons Dr Hampden supposes to have been his enemies, wished him every opportunity of defence. This is all that Is asked. What canfbe more reasonable, whoever makes ihe request ? Till there is a legal decision on the case wc see no end to the quarrel. How can there he, so long as thousands of men, not deficient in learning, piety, and zeal, believe that the State has forcibly intruded into its highest offices, a man who explain* the ancient creeds of the Church to be the gratuitous conclusions of human philosophy ? On the part of Dr. Hampden's accusers, unless that word be too strong, there is the sincerest desire to confine the question to his writings, and divest it of all personality. Nothing whatever has been said of the man, except ol that complimentary sort which is conventional among well-bred controversialists. Personalities have indeed been introduced. Ilustihiy has been ascribed. Acis have been stigmatized with a moral opprobrium. Combinations of party, with ulterior and treacherous designs, have been imagined. But by whom? Not by any of those persons "ho have come forward to dtfend the Church from an unsafe guide. All will excuse Dr. Hampden, himself, whose position U painful and trying indeed. He must be allowed his say, bat others are not so excusable. At least it is very hard that they should themselves bring all sorts of personal considerations into the ques* tion, and tinai cry it down as a mere personal affair.

What is the Offen«e of Pk-emunii-E ?—lt is contempt of the Queen mid her Government, and it is so called, says Biackstone, from the ivords of the writ preparatory to the prosecution thcrcuf. it is enacted by the 25th Henry VIIL, chap. 2U.—" That if the Dean end Chapter refuse to elect the person named by the Sovereign, or any Archbishop or Bishop, tu coufirm or consecrate him, they shall fall uithtu the penalties of the statutes of pTtemunirc." The punishment for this offence is thus stated by Coke—" Tuat from tne conviction, the defendant shall be out of the King's, protection, and his lands and tenements* goods and chattels, forfeited to the King—and that his body shall remain m prison at the King's pleasure—oij (as other authorities have it) duiing life." So odious, says Coke, was this offence, that a man that was attainted of it might have been tlain by any other man, without any danger of law ; because it was provided by law that any man might do to him as to the King's pnemy, and any man might lawfully kill an enemy. If any Archbishop, or Bishop be contemplating the commission of this offence, it will be an well that he should utiderstsnd that it 1b no longer lawful for individuals or the mob to inflict summary punishment. The statute sth of Elizabeth chip. 1, provides that it shall cot be lawtulto kill any person attainted in a "ptcsmunirc, any \xv, statute, opinion, or exposition of law to the contrary notwithstanding. But still, such deiinuuent, says Biackstone, though protected as apart oi tue public, from public wrongs, can bring no action for any pri\atc injury how atrocious so ever, being so far out of the protection of the law, that it will not guard his civil rights, nor remedy any grievance which he a* au individual may suffer. And no man koovnug him to be guilty, can with safety give hmi comfort.— (Zlvbe.