This is his letter, which certainly warranted Lord John in saying 'he received no discouragement from the Archbishop of Canterbury.' It amounts very nearly to a sanction of the appointment; and nothing but the Archbishop's age, and the timidity, both natural to him and belonging to his age, can excuse his not having taken a more active part in allaying the irritation than he has done. So far as the Archbishop was concerned, Lord John understated his case. _January 21st._--Dined on Wednesday with Baron Rolfe--Campbell, Langdale, Wilde, and Solicitor-General (Dundas); much talk about the rule in Queen's Bench (in Hampden's case), and whether the law must be altered. Campbell against alteration, the rest thinking there must be some, and the old law of Edward VI. making the bishoprics donative restored. This is what Lushington told me must be done.[29] [Footnote 30: [On December 11 an attempt was made to arrest the confirmation of Dr. Hampden as Bishop of Hereford in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow. But this was overruled by the Commissioners. On December 24 the Attorney-General showed cause against a rule _nisi_ granted on the 14th by the Court of Queen's Bench, for a mandamus against the Archbishop of Canterbury. Judgement was given on February 1. Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Erle were in favour of granting the mandamus; Lord Denman, C. J., and Mr. Justice Patteson against it. The Court being equally divided, no mandamus was issued.]] [Sidenote: THE QUEEN OF SPAIN.]