The Sun. — London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

urination and the reasons - which induced Governor Grey Earl not to promulgate the charter, as well as those of arl Grey in proposing this course. It wa s in tendedto promulgate the charter in New U lster, but the Government thought it better to suspend al together for the present the introduction of these in stitutions rather than to carry them out in part of the country. The lion. Gentleman concluded by eulo tsing the wise government of Governor Grey , which ad caused great improvement in the colony, and ex- Pressed his hope that New Zealand would become a valitable addition to the possessions of this country. Mr. GLADSTONE agreed, almost without excep• f,,no, to everything that bad fallen from the Ri g ht 'cum Gentleman. With regard to what had been laid of Governor Grey, he would only re-echo the expressions of the Right Hon. Gentleman; and he adopted the language of the Right Hon. Gentleman With regard to the natives ; and he rejoiced the more et what had been said by the Right Hon. Gentleman, because there had not always been a disp osition in that House to recognise the qualities of the New Zealanders. If that House could show towards them that paternal care and tenderness which it was their duty to show towards them, he could not but think, even after all that had happened, from the intelligence Which had been lately received, that there was every hope that they would yet witness a satisfactory ter letination to the enlightened labours which had been bestowed on New Zealand. The Right Hon. Gen tleman said that the late Government intended to give free constitution to New Zealand. It was true that they did so intend ; but there was a difference of opinion between the late and the present Government as to the speediest mode of effecting it. It was their opinion that any step which should be taken to bind the hands of Governor Grey would be a measure not only ill advised, but would lead to a loss of the time it was intended to save. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought it would have been better if Earl Grey had deferred More to the opinion of Governor Grey, and not sent out instructions which were not suited to the circum stances of the colony. With regard to the Bill in troduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that a case had been made out for it. The reasons which induced it were of a pe culiar nature, and he thought the House should re frain from a detailed discussion upon it till the mea sure had been some time in their hands, and had been well considered. As he (Mr. Gladstone) under- Stood it, it put the whole power of establishing the representative government in the hands of the go vernor. These were extraordinary powers; but he would grant that there never was a man into whose bands they could be better entrusted, and there sever was a case of greater difficulty of governing at a distance, and which more required local knowledge. Everything which would allow local knowledge to prevail over distant and speculative plans ought to be done. He wished to say a word with regard to a dispatch of Earl Grey, relating to the disposal of public lands in New Zealand. In the be ginning of the session he asked if the Government would lay on the table the dispatch of Earl Grey in December, 1846, especially that part of it which re lated to the disposal of lands. He found in the papers which had been delivered that morning an acknow ledgment by Governor Grey of the receipt of that dispatch, but no reference to that portion of it relating to the disposal of land. He concluded that, if it had arrived, it would soon be laid on the table, and, if not, it would not be long before it did. He (Mr. Glad stone) thought that portion of the dispatch was of great importance, and he read with great misgivi n g s *with respect to the mode of applying the doctrines laid down in it. The dispatch of Earl Grey, which closed the papers on the table, referred to the protest of the Bishop of New Zealand, in which he assumed that the dispatch of the Noble Lord in relation to the disposal was at variance with the treaty of Waitangai, and he protested against it. A protest of this descrip tion, in its first aspect, seemed to be a gratuitous and wanton interference of a spiritual person in civil affairs. ut on examination it would prove not to be so, and the character of the Bishop of New Zealand was such, that he was not so disposed to interfere, but was more inclined to attend solely to his spiritual functions, and to shrink from political affairs ; that in thia instance the clergy were chosen as the instru hsents by which the treaty of W'aitangai was carried o at. It was only by their means that the governor Could hold real and extensive intercourse with the aborigines, and the governor did commit the conduct of the treaty to them. It therefore became the duty of the bishop, as their head, to see that the ,public faith conveyed through them was strictly kept. In his dispatch, Earl Grey expressed no doubt of the sincerity of the bishop, but he also expressed his fear that the language of his protest was such as ought not to have been addressed to a people so lately emerged ftom barbarism. This was evidently not a protest made public in the colony, but addressed by the bishop to the governor, as a person for whom he had every respect, and whose authority he was most anxious to support. That being so, the bishop was not open to the charge, made by Lord Grey, of ad• dressing exciting language to a people easily excited. He hoped the Hon, Gentleman opposite would state \ whether this protest had not been made in the way he had stated. Into the merits of the question he would now decline to enter, After the recess he hoped a clay would be fixed for giving to the measure the full consideration which its importance demanded. Mr. V. SMITH regretted that the necessity should have arisen for another direct interference with the colony of New Zealand. This colony was the one most congenial to Englishmen, and therefore possessed Peculiar interest for the Legislature. However much praise might be due to the governor, Parliament could take none to itself ; for this Bill was an admis sion of their past neglect. A Bill had passed the be :gislature in 1846, almost without discussion. In December last the Colonial-office had begun to act on this constitution —which now turned out to be wholly inapplicable to the circumstances of the colony— 'although it had been promised that it should not be enforced until it had received the approbation of Go -vernor Grey. Almost as soon as the Bill had passed 'there arrived from New Zealand a protest against the measure by the inhabitants of Nelson, denouncing the Measure as one based in utter ignorance of the colony. 'As it was now proposed to suspend the political con stitution, he would suggest that it would be as well to suspend also the territorial constitution, as placed is the hands of the New Zealand Company. It seemed that certificates were to be granted to the abo rigines, entitling them to vote ; and it was highly pro bable that their pride might be thereby offended. Ac cording to Governor Grey's account of these men, their moral and religious character stood very high—more so, he feared, than the character of many of the emi -grants from this country. He thought that matters 'of this kind might be safely left to the discretion of Governor Grey, whose conduct afforded an ample guarantee for his efficient management; probably to no man who had ever been sent out as governor l'sight a wide discretion be more safely entrusted. — (Hear, hear.) With every respect for the character or the bishop, he certainly thought him an agitating la'ishop.—(Leughter.) He had made his protest ainst Governor Grey's proceedings, as the " head of the missionary body ; and everybody knew how frequently missionary zeal overstepped discretion. It could not be contended that he did not mean the pro test to be made public, for he declared his intention " God being his helper," to inform the natives of New Zealand of their rights and privileges.—(Hear, hear.) Such a man as bishop must impede very seriously the steps taken by Governor Gray. Mr. PALMER defended the character of the bishop, and said that he had done more genuine ser vice, not only to the cause of religion, but to the poli tical and social interests of the colony, than could possibly be done by any company here or elsewhere. 'The colonisation of New Zealand had presented a dayourable contrast to the colonising efforts of other countries ; by the aid of the missionaries, civilization and religion had been introduced, amidst much per secution from the natives; and upon the foundation they laid the Government had been enabled to build its political system. The advantages thus derived - were owing to the missionaries.—(Hear, hear.) It was true there might be instances amongst them, as amongst other men, in which zeal had outrun discre tion. The high character - of the aborigines had been manifested even by the humane way in which they had conducted their wars. The bishop had clearly understood Lord Grey's dispatch, as he (Mr. Palmer) understood it, to deny all further terri torial rights to the natives ; and with this view the bishop and the missionaries could not do other than protest against the principle. Mr. HUME regretted when ,he first saw it an nounsled that Government intended to repeal that portion of the Act of last year which extended sel the f governmen to the colony, but, on looking at papers w hi c h had been laid on the table, he must adinit they fully warranted them in the course they had taken. The rea.ions seaigned by Governor Grey for such a step were anan ly sufficient.—(Hear.) T he conduct of the bishop, he was sorry to say, had thrown a new element of difficulty in the government of the col on y. He believed no docum ent had ever been laid before Parliament in which a bishop or clergyman load stood up and publicly bearded the governor of a %limy, and declared that he would dispute the orders not of the governor only, but of the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department—(Hear.) It had been laid down that the natives had no right of pro- Verty except in the land they actually occupied. This pcinciple the bishop opposed, and preached to the s wages that they were entitled to all the land in the colony. The people of England were, in fact, paying a salary of 6001. a year to this bishop to be a firebrand in the colony. He did not dispute the high qualities the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had as cribed to Bishop Selwyn, but to him (Mr. Hume) it appeared the Rev. Gentleman had every sense but common sense.—(Hear and a laugh.) He would advise the Government to remove him as soon as possible to a better climate, or, at all events, stop hie salary. The Hon. Gentleman who last spoke had THE 8U N, referred to the services of the missionaries and their successful efforts in colonising New Zealand ; but, if he was rightly informed, the Church Missionary Society had intimated to their missionaries at New Zealand that they were forgetting their duties in becoming proprietors of land instead of preachers of the Gospel. It would appear that, whatever other virtues the missionaries possessed, they had not the virtue of self-denial; for they had absorbed to them selves, he believed, 96,000 acres of land—(Hear) — and, having done so, they disputed the right of others to acquire land, and stirred up the natives to resist any attempt on the part of others to obtain it. He believed the disputes with the natives, which had resulted in the loss. of so many English lives, were owing entirely to the intrigues of the missionaries, and that to them alone were to be ascribed the hatred and disgust which had been engendered in the minds of the natives to the British rule. There was but 7 - little hope for peace in the colony while these mis sionamies, with the bishop at their head, were ranging themselves against the governor; and for his part he hoped the Government at home would make Governor Grey dictator, until he succeeded in putting down their opposition.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) At all events, he trusted that what had occurred in New Zealand would be a lesson to the Government not to send out any more bishops to our colonies.—(Hear.) Mr. CARDWELL hoped that in solving the diffi cult problem of how far constitutional institutions were applicable to a mixed race of aborigines and settlers, the Government would not take their instruc tions from the Hon. Member for Montrose. Consti tutional liberty would be at an end in the colony if the bishop were not to be permitted to address a firm and respectful remonstrance to the Secretary of State against any act of the Government of the colony. He could assure the Hon. Member for Montrose that the fear of losing the 6001. a year allowed him by the House of Commons would not deter Bishop Selwyn from acting in accordance with what he felt to be his duty. That Right Rev. Gentleman represented a body of persons of whom all who had held the office of Secretary of State had spoken in the highest terms. It must be remembered that we obtained New Zea land by treaty, which treaty was negotiated by the missionaries. We had ostentatiously disclaimed the right of sovereignty over the country. The question was debated by the New Zealanders, when the matter was proposed to them whether they should or should not make the treaty—those who would have dissuaded them from it, arguing that the object was to deprive them of the land; but the missionaries assured them that that was not the object. The New Zealanders, in their own language and peculiar mode of expressing their ideas, said, " We quite understand you ; the shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, and the substance remains with us." It could not be denied, seeing the part they had had in negotiating it, that the missionaries had the full right to express their sense of the treaty of Waitangai, and to protest against any infraction of it. Mr. AGLION BY said that several exaggerated statements had been made respecting the Bishop of New Zealand. He could only say that he much re gretted the protest which had been issued by that Right Rev. Prelate. There was a great deal of difference between the rights and privileges of office, and the mode in which those rights and privileges were exercised.—(Hear, hear.) He was extremely sorry that the bishop had thought it consistent with his duty and episcopal character to threaten to go amongst the natives to explain to them what he con calved to be their rights, a course the only effect of which could be to estrange them from the Govern ment and the settlers.—(flear, hear.) With respect to the Church missionaries, all who had perused the Parliamentary report must be aware that they did not deserve the exaggerated praise which had been bestowed on them in the course of that debate. They were not all of that character and standing which properly belonged to missionaries of the Church ; on the contrary, many were extremely ignorant, and some had shown themselves by their conduct to be tainted with personal motives wholly inconsistent with their clerical character.—(Hear, hear.) It should be re collected also that when a Wesleyan missionary became a purchaser of land he was immediately recalled.—(Hear, hear.) Hew had the Church mis sionaries conducted themselves ? It was a matter of notoriety that they had purchased 96,000 acres of land.—(Hear, hear.) A justification of this course had been attempted, on the ground that it was neces sary they should provide a maintenance for their families ; but he believed the feeling was very general that they had transgressed the rules of the Church society. The aborigines, he admitted, were an active and intelligent race ; but neither did they deserve the high eulogium which they had received. It should not be forgotten that during the war they had slain and mutilated their prisoners for the hor rible purposes of cannibalism.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the Bill before the House he was quiteiwill ing to concede the power given to to the governor; and all disputes between the settlers and the company might be safely, in his opinion, left to the arbitration of that functionary. Sir E. BUXTON was of opinion that the Bishop of New Zealand had done his duty, and nothing more.—(Hear, hear.) He (the bishop) had come to the conclusion that the Government intended to trample on the treaty of Waitangai, and it was his duty, therefore, to inform the natives of their rights, and the mode in which they might constitutionally obtain redress. He trusted that the Right Rev. Pre late's exertions, and the good feeling of the people of England, would cause that treaty to be respected in all essential points. Mr. PLUMPTRE was willing to admit that the missionaries had gone somewhat beyond bounds, but then they had families to support; and it should be recollected that a thousand acres of land in New Zea land was a very different thing from the same quan tity in England. There might have been something wrong, but still it was hardly fair to treat with such severity men who had proved themselves ready to sacrifice their lives in the cause in which they had embarked. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with the Bishop of New Zealand, but from all he had heard he believed the Right Rev. Prelate to deserve all the encomiums which had been passed upon him. Still he must re gret that the bishop should have addressed a formal communication to the governor, announcing his in tention to use all legal and constitutional measures to inform the natives - of their rights and privileges as British subjects, and to instruct them in their mainte nance by all legal and constitutional means.—(Hear, hear.) Why, this was informing them that he dif fered from the executive Government, and also tempt ing them to petition the Crown. He must say, that in his opinion this was a most unfortunate step on the part of the bishop. It was impossible for his Noble Friend to abstain from expressing, in temperate and respectful language towards the bishop, but at the same time in that firm and decided language which was due to himself and to, the situation he held, his deep regret that the bishop should have announced his determination to such an effect. There was a formal announcement on the part of the bishop to begin a course of agitation.—(Oh, oh.) What was it in common language but agitation, that a bishop should tell the people to get up petitions and to lay them before the Crown ?—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the question whether any other docu ments had been written on the subject, and whether Governor Grey had expressed any opinion with regard to it, he begged to reply that there was no other papers on the subject in the Colonial-office beyond what were contained in the book on the table. He believed that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite agreed in the abstract opinion of his Noble Friend respecting the tenure of land. If the Right Hon. Gentleman looked at the papers, he would find that it was scarcely possible to guard the accredited rights of the natives more scrupulously than his Noble Friend had done. The bishop was not justified then in saying that his Noble Friend laid down the abstract principle that all land was to be given to the Crown. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Liver pool said that he regretted that the municipal institu tions were to be retarded. That was not the case. On the contrary, the municipal institutions were to be enlarged, and it was proposed to communicate the municipal franchise to the aboriginal natives who re sided within the municipal district, by giving them a certificate. With regard to the further progress of the Bill, what he proposed was, that, as it was im portant no doubt should exist in the minds of the people of New Zealand as to the principle of the Bill, it should be read a second time on Monday next, so that the affirmation of the principle might be sent out to the colony, the discussion of the details in Com mittee being deferred till after the recess. He hoped there would be no objection to that course. Lord CLIVE did not think that the Right lion. Gentleman fairly interpreted the design of the bishop when he said he wished to agitate the colony.—(Hear, hear.) In looking over the papers, he observed that they had not Governor Grey's opinion as to the bishop.—(" Yes, yes," arid cries of " Read No. 42.") It was but fair that the Bishop of New Zealand, as representing the clergy who had a substantive and independent character of their own district from the Crown, should inform the natives of their just rights, in order that they might be protected. The Earl of ARUNDEL said, it seemed very strange to him that any bishop should be censured for giving instructions to those under his charge as to the propriety of petitioning the civil power for their just r ights.—(Hear.) COMMERCIAL DISTRESS AND CURRENCY COITTEE. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he found it utterly impossible to include in the Com mittee the names of all but thosehe w who,ould he ask thou the p ht, ermhadis a fair claim to be on it; - sion of the House to allow the Committee to consist of twenty-six Members instead of twenty. Twenty six was the number that sat on the Committee of •1840-41. LON DON, Mr. HUAIE said there was not a man in the city of London who did not consider this Committee as a mere cloak.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see any oc casion for augmenting the number of the Committee beyond what the established practice of the House required. But he did not see the necessity for a Committee at all. They had Committees in 1832, 1836, 1837, and 1840, and between 14 ; 000 and 15,000 questions had been asked. The whole subject was therefore exhausted. He believed they were wrong in attempting to carry on the monetary affairs of the country by the assistance of a bank which be gan without any capital. The Bank of England was vicious in principle. They required the Bank to dis count bills without a shilling, for they had nothing but the Rest.—(Hear, hear.) It was observed, with great truth, that the Bank traded on its credit. The value of property was now less by 250,000,0001. than it was at the commencement of the year, owing to their monetary system. They were leaning on a reed which was not able to stand by itself. In October last, a few days after the letter of the Right Hon. Gentleman, there were only 1,100,0001. in notes in the Bank of England and its twelve branches. What a paltry sum that was to support the credit of the country.—(Hear, hear.) And at that moment the Bank had 20,000,000/. out in liabilities, so that any two men possessed of 500,0001. might have brought it to a stand.—(Hear, hear.) That was not the state in which they ought to be. He saw no use of this Com mittee, and he would therefore move that its appoint ment be postponed till the 4th of February. Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would repeat that he merely desired the appointment of the Committee, in order that it might be deter mined what documents should be called for, so that such documents might be ready for the Committee when they should meet after the recess. Mr. EWART supported the amendment. Mr.F.IMACKENZIE considered that some Scotch Member or Members—the Member for Glasgow, for example—should be named on the Committee. Mr. HERRIES said it would now appear that the range of inquiry to be entered upon by the Commit tee was far more extensive, far more general, than had been indicated by the Government, in seeking the consent of the House to its appointment.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think this a fair or straightforward course on the part of the Government, if their desire was to create a case for modifying or superseding the present system.—(Hear, hear.) As to mere in quiry, that really seemed to have been exhausted by the former Committee, which elicited from infinite witnesses no fewer than 16,000 answers to questions upon every possible theory connected with the sub ject of currency. The House, however, were called upon in nominating a Committee of 26 gentlemen, to enter upon a new ocean of theory, with no visible bound or limit.—(Hear, hear.) After sitting two years they produced nothing but a huge volume. They offered not the slightest opinion on the question. After this experience, was the House prepared to launch again into an inquiry of the same sort, leaving on the public mind an impression that it was the desire rather to evade than to prosecute the investi gation ? He believed that if the Committee was ap pointed it would lead to no satisfactory results. It was not nominated on a principle to inspire con fidence, and on that ground, if on no other, he should certainly hope that the appointment would be post poned. As one of the Members named upon it, cer tainly, if the Committee were now appointed, he must decline to serve. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment Against it 146 Majority -89 Lord G. BENTINCK said that he should propose bat other names be added. In the list were eight Members of the late and present Government who would be handed together against any alteration in the Bank Charter Act. There was a most re markable exclusion of Members who voted against that Bill. He remarked among others the exclusion of the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire, who had predicted the consequences of this Bill, as well as that of the Hon. Member for Paisley, who had made similar predictions as to the drain of gold on the first great demand for foreign corn. And how was Scotland represented on this Committee ? Why, only by two Members, while the West Riding of Yorkshire was represented by three. Neither of those Scotch Members were connected with joint stock banks in Scotland, or with the commercial in terests. Out of 105 Members, Ireland was only permitted to place one Member on this Committee, although that Member might be said to represent the commerce of the north of Ireland ; but he was not connected with the banking interests. The Member for the metropolis of Ireland was peculiarly fitted to be placed on the Committee. Lancashire ought also to have been better represented, and the Bank of England which was to be put on its defence ; and, with the exception of the Honourable Member for Westmoreland, the Bank was unrepresented. Mr. Muntz was also excluded, perhaps from his known skill in cross-examining a bullionist witness. He should propose to leave out the words twenty-six, and to add thirty as the number. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must resist the motion of his Noble Friend, on the ground that the extension of the Committee was calculated to prevent its usefulness, and he had regretted to make it so large although he had used the precedent in a similar inquiry. The only question was the number of the Committee, and he would not go into the names which should compose it. He should oppose the increase of the number. Mr. T. BARING suggested that the Committee should consist of only eight Member, to be selected from the late and present Administration, and that the inquiry should be limited to the Bill of 1844. [hat would simplify the question, and ensure a more speedy and satisfactory report upon it. The House divided— For the original motion .... .. 136 For the amendment •• 45 Majority On our re-admission into the gallery we found Mr. FORBES moving that the debate be now adjourned. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the adjournment. Lord G. BENTINCK again objected to the con stitution of the Committee, composed as it was of placemen and ex-placemen. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the question was should twenty-six Members be the number of the Committee, and it would be com petent for the Noble Lord to move the substitution of any names for those which were proposed to be nominated. Mr. `VALLEY said he should support the motion for the adjournment of the debate, and thought the Government ought not to hesitate to consent to it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said what he wished was, not to proceed with the nomination of the committee to-night, but to give his Noble Friend opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) an oppor tunity of proposing any names he may think fit. He would therefore postpone the nomination of the Com mittee until to-morrow (this day.) Mr. F. SCOTT urged the nomination of more Members connected with Scotland on the Committee. An HoN. MEMBER thought the opponents of the measure of 1844 should be represented on this Com mittee, or its labours would not gain the confidence of the country. Sir G. GREY said that the House had decided that twenty-six should be the number of the Com mittee, and his Right Hon. Friend had agreed to postpone the nomination of the Committee until to morrow (this day.) Mr. REYNOLDS complained that so few Irish Alembers were proposed by the Government to serve on this Committee. Mr. DISRAELI supported the amendment. Mr. OSBORNE gave notice that to-morrow (this day) he should move to substitute the name of Mr. Reynolds for that of the Hon. Member for Montrose. Mr. CALEY remarked that the whole value of this inquiry would depend on the constitution of the Committee. As it was, he did not hesitate to say that it was not fairly constituted. The upholders of the Bank Charter Act should appoint one-half of the Nlembers, and the opponents of that Act should appoint the other half. If the number were fifteen ha had no objection to a Member of the Government being appointed as the fifteenth. As the Committee was proposed, two-thirds of its Members were selected from gentlemen favourable to the Act of 1844, and one-third only from those who were opposed to it. Captain HARRISS hoped the Government would consent to modify the Committee between that time and to-morrow. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had already stated he did not intend to press the nomina tion of the Committee that night. As far as he could do so, he had, to the best of his judgment, named a perfectly fair Committee ; but it would be open for any gentleman to move to substitute other names for any he had proposed. Mr. HERRIES inquired whether the Ohancellor of the Exchequer would permit other games to be moved without notice ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would fix the nomination for Wednesday. Hon. Gentlemen could therefore give notice of any names it might be proposed to substitute to-morrow (this day). The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn. It was then arranged that the Committee should consist of twenty-six Members, to be nominated on Wednesday. NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL. This Bill was brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE and read a first time. The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock. It is rumoured that Mr. Moore has accepted the seat on the Irish bench vacant by the death of Mr. Jus tice Burton, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1847. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of amnions.) MONDAY, DEC. 13. CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL. Order for Third Reading read ; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time :" Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months." Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question." The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 173. MINORITY-NOES, 14. Antsy, Thomas C. Greene, John Reynolds,!Jonh Callaghan, D. Meagher, Thomas Scully, Frauds Devereux, J. T. Morgan, H. K. G. Fagan, William Fagan, James Fox, Richard M. O'Connell, Maurice TELLIES. O'Connor, Feargus O'Connell, John O'Flaherty, Anthony O'Brien, W. S. THE APPOINTMENT OF DR. HAMPDEN. In addition to the letters we published yesterday, the fbllowing correspondence has taken place : TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD J. RUSSELL. London, Dec. 10, 1847. My Lord,—l had last night the honour of receiving your Lordship's letter of the Bth inst., addressed to my self, in common with the other bishops who had pre sumed to represent to you their apprehensions of the evil consequences which must be expected to result from the nomination (it persisted in) of Dr. Hampden to the vacant see of Hereford. As the remonstrant bishops have now for the most part returned to their several dioceses, it is not possible for them, within any reasonable space of time, to meet together for the purpose of making a common reply to those parts of your Lordship's letter which may seem especially to demand reply. I therefore feel it due to your Lordship, no less than to myself, that I should state frankly, and without waiting for communication with others, the reasons which compel me to withhold my assent from the arguments which you have addressed to us. • Your Lordship is pleased to remark, first, on our " not having stated any want of confidence on our own part in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine." My Lord, in abstaining from such statement, we took that part which, I venture to submit, manifestly was most becoming. We had hardly a right to obtrude upon you, unasked, our opinion on that point; for such opinion would have been only that of individuals, whereas the judgment on which we rested our representation was the judgment of a body eminently qualified to judge, and accustomed, i❑ the best times, 'to be listened to on such subjects with respect and attention by all. But, my Lord, as our si lence on this particular is considered by your Lordship as an omission which lessens the force of our represen tatation, I will not, myself, be silent any longer; I hesi tate not, therefore, to state, that I have no confidence in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine. " The decree of the University to which we referred, passed," as your Lordship truly observes, " 11 years ago; and was founded " (in part—doubtless a principal part) " upon lectures delivered 15 years ago." Why was it, your Lordship seems by implication to ask, that the long interval of four years was suffered to elapse between the publication of the offensive doc trines and the decree which condemned them?—For a reason which I venture to think your Lordship will, on reflection, deem quite sufficient to explain, if not to jus tify the delay. During those four years Dr. Hampden was in no position specially and immediately connected with theo logical teaching; his errors, therefore, however grave, were not so formidable as to demand the unusual inter position of the University, as a body, to vindicate the sacred truths which he had impugned. If it be asked, why the lesser and ordinary tribunal — the Vice-Chancellor's Board—was not resorted to, I frankly answer that Ido not know. It may have pro ceeded, and probably did proceed, from the natural, perhaps culpable, reluctance of men in authority to exercise that authority penally against one of their own number, and from the unwillingness of men not in authority to place themselves, without very special call, in the invidious and painful position of public accusers. At the end of those four years, however, the state of things was greatly altered. Dr. Hampden had ceased to be in the comparatively private station which he had before occupied. He had been appointed to the highest chair of divinity in Oxford. His influence, therefore, on its theological teaching, and on the future character and usefulness of the University, could not but be dreaded and deprecated, and the duty of resistance to that in fluence had become most manifestly, most imperatively urgent. Accordingly, the heads of the University are understood to have presented in the highest quarter, through his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, their strong objections to the appointment; and our then most gracious Sovereign, King William IV., was generally be lieved to have expressed his desire that the appointment should not be completed. But, even the expression of the Royal wish having been found to be in vain, the University was compelled to have recourse to its own unquestioned powers of judging in such a cause, and to take those stops which might not only lessen the power of mischief in the new professor's teaching, but should also vindicate its own character before the world. Such, my Lord, is, I believe, a brief history of the decree to which the remonstrant bishops referred your Lordship. But, you add, that " since the date of that decree, Jr. Hampden has acted as Regius Professor of Divinity; the University of Oxford, and many bishops, as I am told, hays required certificates of attendance on his lec tures 'from candidates for holy orders,' who had received their education at Oxford." My Lord, that " the University of Oxford has ever required certificates from any persons under its authority of attendance on Dr. Hampden's lectures " I have never before heard; nor, till I had the honour of receiving your Lordship's letter, have I had the slightest reason to believe. With regard to the course taken by bishops in this respect, I may be allowed to say that it had been the universal rule of every diocese in England to require the certificate of attendance on the Regius Professor's lec tures for a very long period before that chair was filled by Dr. Hampden. If any bishops abstained from re voking that rule, although a professor was appointed whom they might greatly disapprove, it would not much surprise me; nor should I think that they thereby pre cluded themselves from the right of testifying their ad verse judgment of him on any grave occasion, as the present must pre-eminently be held to be. Be this as it may, if any of the remonstrant bishops are justly open to this remark (I know not that any of them are), lam not in the number. Immediately after the passing of the academic statute in question I deemed it right to inform Dr. Hampden, as, doubtless, if he has made any communication to you on this head, he has informed your Lordship. that I could not regard him as a safe guide tofitudents in;theology, and could not there fore require certificates of attendance on his lectures from candidates for holy orders. I made this commu nication in terms as little offensive to Dr. Hampden's feelings as I could devise; and I had the satisfaction of receiving from him, if my memory does not deceive me, an acknowledgment to that effect. That "Dr. Hampden has likewise preached sermons, for which he has been honoured with the approbation of several prelates of our Church," I most unhesitatingly believe on the authority of your Lordship; but the re levancy of such a fact to the matter now in question, in any but an infinitesimal degree, I must profess my in ability to perceive. Your Lordship proceeds to say, " Several months be fore I named Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the see of Hereford I signified my intention " (not, I am confident, of naming him to the see of Hereford, for that see was not then vacant nor likely to be vacant, nor to the next see which might be open—for another has been since open, to which Dr. Hampden was not named ; and more than one eminent person is known to have had the offer of it from your Lordship ; but, it may have been, that you signified your intention of naming Dr. Hamp den to some see, at some time or other) " to the Arch bishop of Canterbury, and did not receive from him any discouragement." My Lord, your Lordship will, I am confident, pardon my inquiry (for the question is manifestly most impor tant to the fair understanding of the merits of the case). Did you ask his Grace whether he thought Dr. Hampden a fit person to be recommended to a bishopric ? It you did not ask his opinion, few persons will be at all sur prised that he abstained from giving it. Your Lordship better knows than I can presume to guess what are the relations between his LGrace and yourself—what your habits of consultation with him on this and kindred questions. But thus much I must say, that unless these relations be most intimate, these habits most unreserved, it would seem to be almost a matter of course that our aged Primate, one always distinguished by his delicacy and reluctance to obtrude, without ab solute necessity, the expression of any,opinion adverse to the interests of another—it would seem to me, I repeat, a matter of course that his Grace should forbear to tell your Lordship that your intention of recommending Dr. Hampden at some period, which might never arrive during the continuance of your Lordship's power of re commending, or during his own valuable life, would in volve you in the difficulty of having named a person whose appointment would be regarded by the Church at large as an act either of wanton insult or of official reck lessness beyond all precedent. After all, it is satisfactory to see, on the authority of your Lordship's own words, to how small dimensions the swelling statement at first made of this matter has at length dwindled. The story—which was put forth in a tone only not official, and circulated by those who spoke as on the authority of your Lordship—that the Archbishop had given " his cordial assent " to Dr. Hampden's appointment to the now vacant see of Hereford, turns out to be nothing more than that the Archbishop gave " no discouragement," when, several months before the see of Hereford was vacant, you signified to his Grace your intention of naming Dr. Hampden, at some time or other, to some bishopric or other. And the importance even of this intimation of the Archbishop's supposed " assent " to Dr. Hampden's appointment, small as it is, sinks into absolute insignifi cance—or, rather, is converted into something much more nearly resembling "dissent "—when it is stated, on authority too respectable to admit of question, that your Lordship actually received a letter from the Arch bishop some days before that of :the Bishops, in which his Grace apprised you of the ferment which the an nouncement of Dr. Hampden's promotion was exciting in the Church, and of the certainty of legal steps being taken in order to defeat it. My Lord, I have said that the appointment of Dr. Hampden is an act "beyond all precedent." And this, I believe, is strictly true. Never before was any person recommended by the Crown to a bishopric against whom there stood a formal legal judgment affirming the up soundness of his doctrine. This is the real, the special distinction of his case. Short of this, indeed, one or two instances, not dissimilar, occur to me while I am writing. The first is the case of two pers ons nominated b y C li h in e in the words of Burnet tha n in m y own . King James ran e d s O n x”fo in rd ; " Cartwright was pro moted to Chester. The see of the a n y d er w , o l a t i B6 , ra to th e fi r l l o t v h e e th s e o es cas o e f Oxford was given to Dr. Parker. These two persons were pitched on as the fittest instruments that could be found among the clergy to betray and ruin the Church." My Lord, I most unfeignedly disclaim the slightest in tention to insinuate that such is your object in naming Dr. Hampden, or that he would be a fit instrument for such a purpose. I believe you both to be utterly inca pable of anything so dishonourable. But the preceding inapposite words are necessary to introduce what is, I submit, really apposite:— " Some of the bishops brought to Archbishop Sancroft articles against them, which he desired they would offer to the King in Council, and pray that the mandate for consecrating them might be delayed till time were given to examine particulars ; and the Bishop Lloyd told me that Sancroft promised to him not to consecrate them till he had examined the truth of the articles, which were too scandalous to be repeated. Yet, when Sancroft saw what danger he might incur if he were sued in prxmu nire, he consented to consecrate them. " [An accident happened in the action that struck him much. When he was going to give the chalice in the sacrament, he stumbled on one of the steps of the altar, and dashed out all the consecrated wine that was in it ; which was much taken notice of; and gave himself much trouble, since he was frightened by so mean a fear."] — Burnet, History of his own Times, Oxford, 1823, vol. iii., p. 136-8. Such, my Lord, is the first—precedent shall I say ? or warning ? It is for your Lordship to decide ; and in forming your decision you will, I doubt not, remem ber that Sancroft is not now in the see of Canterbury, nor James 11. on the throne of England. The other case is that of Bishop Hoadly, of which I am more apprehensive that your Lordship may think it worthy of being followed. Against this prelate, a notorious Latitudinarian, " and something more," the Lower House of Convocation in 1717 prepared a renresentation to be presented to the Archbishops and Bishops sitting in the Upper House, " that with much grief of heart they had observed that the Right Rev, the Lord Bishop of Bangor hath given great and grievous offence by certain doctrines and po sitions by him lately published," the tendency of which they proceeded to set forth in the form of articles. Before this representation could be brought into the Upper House the Convocation was prorogued by a spe cial order from the King, and was not permitted to sit again. The accused prelate was not long afterwards translated to Hereford (what a c om pl e t e an happy pre cedent I), and subsequently, in due succession, to Saha bug and to Winchester. My Lord, if the conduct of the Minister of George I. on that scandalous occasion be not adopted by you as a precedent, show that you repudiate it. Take that step which is due to justice, to the rights of the Church, and to the conscience of every Churchman. Withdraw the recommendation which you have so inconsiderately made ; or, if you persist in it, refer the writings of Dr. Hampden to the judgment of the Church in con vocation. If there are objections to that course, devise some other. Let those writings be judged by a provincial council of the bishops, assisted by such divines as her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to name ; or devise some other tribunal of any kind, provided it be fair and competent ; but do not, as you value your own good name, or the honour of your Sovereign, or the welfare of the Church, and, it may be, it must be, of the State also; for the welfare of the State, rightly understood, is, and ever will be, bound up indissolubly with that of the Church—do not persist in your unhappy career—make not what is as yet only an indiscretion—and revocable as such—make it not a crime, aye, and I dare not forbear adding—a sia. But I return to your Lordship's letter. You proceed to say to us, " Should I withdraw my recommendation of Dr. Hampden, I should virtually assent to the doctrine, that a decree of the University of Oxford is- a perpetual ban of exclusion against a clergyman of eminent learning and irreproachable llfe." My Lord, I doubt not the learning nor the excellent moral character of Dr. Hampden. Bat these qualifica tions have no connexion whatever with the merits of this case? Is Dr. Hampden unworthy of confidence as an exponent of Christian truth? The University of Oxford, judging from his published writings, has so lemnly decreed that he is; and because he is, that Uni versity has deprived him of certain functions hitherto attached to his office of Professor of Divinity. Is it of less moment that there be confidence in the soundness of the doctrine of a bishop than of a professor? Is heterodoxy less mischievous in a judge, than in a teacher, of theology? My Lord, it cannot be necessary to remind you that a bishop, as such, and by the essen tial, indefeasible right and duty of his office, is em powered, and is bound, to judge of the doctrine preached and taught by every clergyman under his charge. The judgment of the University, therefore, ought to be a " ban of exclusion" (from the office of a bishop at least) against Dr. Hampden, so long as it remains in force—in other words, until it shall be either repealed, or washed away, or proved to be unfounded. The first of these three modes has been tried, but the attempt signally failed. The University, six years after the decree passed, was moved to repeal it, and that, too, under circumstances peculiarly favourable to the success of the motion—when, from causes too notorious to need to be recited, a strong reaction had arisen, and prejudice had taken a course more favourable to Dr. Hampden. Yet, even then, the motion of repeal was sternly rejected by a majority, much smaller, indeed, than that which had originally enacted the decree (474 to 94), but large enough to evince abundantly the unaltered and unalter able judment of the University—it was 330 to 219. Your Lordship says, however, " it must not be for gotten, that many of the most prominent among the original majority have since joined the communion of the Church of Rome." My Lord, if by " the most prominent" ought to be understood the committee, who openly sat for the pur pose of devising measures for vindicating the University fromlthe evils which might be expected to result from such a selection of the King's Professor of Theology— and who, as being " the most prominent" in the contest, received the formal thanks of bodies of clergy through out England, too numerous to be recounted—of these, one, indeed, has fallen, to the consternation and grief of all who knew, or had beard of, his high faculties. The others, thank God, still stand rooted and grounded in faith and love. But, my Lord, supposing that those of the majority who have lapsed may be truly stated to be " many " (I know not in any sense that they are), will your Lord ship, or will any honourable man venture to say that, abstracting their names from the list even of the smaller majority, the result would not be to leave that majority still large—still more than sufficient amply to stamp the decree with the impress of the general judgment of the University ? But I have intimated that the stain of the judgment may be washed away. My Lord, I wish this had been done long ago by the only person who is able to do it— by Dr. Hampden himself. The judgment may be washed away by his retracting the errors against which it was directed. But this is a course which Dr. Hampden has refused to take. In a published letter of his to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated January 23, 1838, he thus writes :—" I retract nothing that I have written ; I disclaim nothing." My Lord, I honour Dr. Hampden for thus writing— so long as his opinions are unchanged, ho cannot re tract; but so long as he does not retract, he cannot reasonably expect the position from which those opinions exclude him. If in his teaching, during eleven years as Regius Professor, or in any of the valuable sermons of which your Lordship writes, he had either expressly or virtually withdrawn what was justly censurable in his earlier writings, I, for one, should not have been found in the list of remonstrants. Yet, I frankly own, that I should, even in that case, still bear in mind (and with hearty assent) a saying of King George 111., which was strongly marked by his characteristie practical good sense. When his Minister recommended to him for a vacant bishopric some divine who had set forth certain unsound doctrines, which, however, ho afterwards retracted—" I will have for my new Bishop," said the good King, " some man who has nothing to retract." But a third course may, I have said, be taken, to re move from Dr. Hampden the ban of exclusion of which your Lordship writes. Let the censure of the Univer sity, which has created it, be proved to be unfounded. Let this be done before any competent tribunal, and Dr. Hampden will then enter on the office to which your Lordship has designated him with powers of useful ness which he will otherwise, if he ever enter upon it at all, be utterly unable to carry with him. My Lord, a higher authority than any conga (Mire, or letter mis sive, has said " a bishop must be blameless," not ex empt, I need not say, from human infirmity, not free from every breath of calumny and envy, but pure from all which can be justly called " blame," pure from the censure of all who are entitled to pronounce judicially upon him. Your Lordship is pleased to add, what (I must con fess) no lighter testimony than that of your own hand could make me think it possible that you could write, " that this would be, in fact, to say that the supre macy which is now by law vested in the Crown is to be transferred to a majority of the members of one of our Universities." My Lord, if instead of a decree having been passed against Dr. Hampden for unsound teaching by the Usd versity of Oxford, a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench had been pronounced against him fur some flagitious crime, and if this judgment were urged as a reason why he should not be promoted to a bishopric— would this be to transfer the royal supremacy from the Queen to Lord Denman ? If it would not, why should it be said to follow from Dr. Hampden's being disquali fied for a bishopric, so long as he is under the censure of the Oxford decree, that this is to transfer the supremacy of the Crown to the Convocation of Oxford ? My Lord, I own I am mortified at finding myself obliged to answer such transparent sophistry as this. Your Lordship " d ee ply regr ets" —l doubt not sin cerely—"o the feeling that is said. to be common among Hampden, the clergy on this subject." " But , " irn y a ou add, cannot sacrifice the reputation of Dr. pden, the rights of the Crown, and what I be lieve to be- the true interests of the Church, to a 'feeling which I believe to be founded on misapprehension, and fomented by prejudice." My Lord, if this, f ee ling be indeed "founded on misapprehension,' let itis e proved to bo sa; if it be ..f om ented by prejudice," do not give to that prejudice the increased momentum of a dee p and bitter feeling of persecution. To your assurance of 'your belief, that "the true in terests of the Church" are bound up with the appoint ment of Dr. Hampden, I have neither a right, nor any inclination, to withhold the fullest cr e dit. I t h ank your Lordship for your regard for those interests, however mistaken I may deem your way of testifying it. Your unwillingness to " sacrifice the reputation of Dr. Hampden" does you honour. Shall I be deemed officious if I suggest to you the only expedient by which you can preserve it ? For Dr. Hampden's sake—for your own sake—for the sake of his reputation, and of your own—let his theological writings be subjected to a fitting and adequate tribunal. If the result be a sentence of exculpation, then, indeed, Dr. Hampden's reputation will be upheld and vindicated—then, indeed, it will " not be sacrificed" —which else it must be, if he bo forced, or if it be attempted to force him, on the reluc tant and reclamant Church, by rousing into life and ac tivity the hitherto dormant powers of the most hateful and most tyrannical law which is permitted to pollute our statute-book. But your Lordship is further resolved " not to sacri fice" what you call " the rights of the Crown," found( d upon that statute. My Lord, the name of Russell ought to be—ever will be, lam sure, in y eur re fl ec ti ng h ours — a secu rity to us against the application by you of a phrase so sacred as " the rights of the Crown," to a matter so foul as the provisions of the statute of which I am writing. My Lord, the Crown has no right, can have no right (I trust, too, that it will be found to have no power) to force a bishop on the Church, whom the Church has just right to reject as a " setter forth of erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's word." True, my Lord, the statute 25th Henry VIII., c. 20 (the Magna Charts of Tyranny) does give to the Crown a power, which your Lordship has been pleased to call a "right," to condemn to prison, an d to penury, any dean, or any chapter, which may refuse compliance with such a mandate. But no statute has the power to effect the execution of the mandate itself ; no statute has the power to make an honest and conscientious chapter to elect, or an honest and conscientious prelate to conse crate to the office of bishop, such a person as I have described above. Forbear, my Lord, while you hare yet time. Persist not in your rash experiment. The bands of your vaunted statute will snap asunder like wither, if you attempt to bind with them the strongest of all strong men—the man who is strengthened with inner might against the assailant of his Church. My Lord, do not imagine that I am one of those, who, if it were within their power, would deprive the Crown of any portion of its rightful supremacy—espe cially of its just, legitimate, Christian influence in the appointment of our bishops—an influence which I firmly believe to be necessary to the peace, and, therefore, to the efficiency, of the Church. Let the 'Crown continue to nominate them; but let it exercise this right, which almost all considerate Churchmen wish it to rotain, with caution, with discretion, with due regard to the feelings and the conscience of all concerned.: Depend upon it, my Lord, the remonstrant Bishops spake to you a sound and pregnant truth when they told you that "the nomi nation to vacant bishoprics is a very delicate, as well as a very important, particular of the royal supremacy." But I will not enlarge on this matter. Again, I im plore you to forbear while you yet have time. Retrace your steps—and be assured every honest and good man, every prudent and sound adviser—above all, your own conscience, though not, it may be, your present tran sient feeling—will applaud your forbearance.—l hay the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obe dient servant, H. EXETER. The Right Hon. Lord John Russell. POSTSCRIPT. 27, Conduit-street, Dec. 13. My Lord,—l have just seen a copy of your Lord ship's answer to the address from the lay members of the Church (very many and very distinguished members as I have heard), on occasion of Dr. Hampden's ap pointment. Connected as this address is with the subject of my recent letter, I may be permitted to add a few words .in reference to it, as a postscript to what I there wrote. Your Lordship states "your belief that the appoint ment will tend to strengthen the Protestant character of our Church, so seriously threatened of late by many de fections to the Church of Rome." I give your Lordship full credit for the motive to which you ascribe this appointment ; but I must frankly say, that I should esteem any act a poor, and worse than worthless, compliment to " the Protestant character" of our Church, ay, and a real weakening of that Protestant character, rightly understood, which tends to make that character less Catholic and less worthy of the confidence• of the sound portion of the Catholic Church throughout the world. But I have pleasure in stating to your Lordship that, not only, in my own diocese, but in many others, the re solutions, addresses, and petitions, on this occasion, have been subscribed by the clergy of all shades of religious opinion, among them by those who are most strenuous in the cause of Protestantism. I also feel it my duty to state to your Lordship that I have been assured that there was great reason to fear that if this appointment bad taken place without strong' resistance from all who could resist, and without re monstrance from those who could :only remonstrate, there would have been a fresh and more deplorable, as well as far more numerous " defection from our Church," which would then have seemed tacitly to ac quiesce in its own degradation, and so to have almost unchurched itself. Your Lordship is pleased to condemn the course taken by the University of Oxford in 1836, and confirmed in 1842, as " an unworthy proceeding." Without presuming to question the right of your Lora ship, as an individual, to condemn any public act of any body of men whatsoever, I yet may take the liberty of saying that I cannot recognise the fitness (I am unwil ling to use a stronger word) of the First Minister of the Crow* thus publicly and officially holding up to indig nation a solemn decree of one of the most eminent and venerated bodies, not only in England, but in Europe. I must also venture to suggest a question whether this be the happiest mode of testifying that " charity" which I doubt not your Lordship feels, but of which you de plore " the sad want" in others; or of allaying those " feelings of bitterness" which your Lordship, in common with all good men, must sincerely deprecate.—l hale the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obe dient servant, H. EXETER. The Right Hon. the Lord John Russell. The following is the correspondence to which the postcript refers. " My Lord,—We, the undersigned lay members of the Church of England, beg leave to represent to your Lordship the deep concern with which we have heard the report of your intention to recommend Dr. Hampden to her Majesty as the future Bishop of Hereford. " We have seen and heard enough of the strong feel ing, both of laymen and of clergy, on this occasion, to convince us that the appointment, if persisted in, will stir up feelings of bitterness, which it would be impos sible soon to eradicate, and which would probably lead to consequences which your Lordship would deprecate as earnestly as ourselves. " We fervently hope that these, or other reasons, may induce your Lordship to reconsider the case, before you finally advise her Majesty to recommend, for elm tion to the vacant bishopric, a person who has been solemnly pronounced by his own University to be un worthy of its confidence as a teacher of Christian truth. ---- " We are, my Lord, &c. &c. " To the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, M.P." Chesham-place, Dec. 10, 1847. My Lords and Gentlemen,—l have had the honour to receive your representation on the subject of my recom mendation of Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the soe of Hereford. I am aware that there exists a strong feeling on lite part of some laymen and clergymen against Dr. Hamy den ; but that the appointment should excite feelings of bitterness is, I hope, an error, as it would show a sad want of Christian charity on the part of those who would indulge such feelings. The consequences with which I am threatened I am prepared to encounter, as I believe the appointment will tend to strengthen the Protestant character of our Church, so seriously threatened of late by many defec tions to the Church of Rome. Among the chiefs of these defections are to be found the leading promoters of the movement against Dr. Hampden eleven years:ago. in the University of Oxford. " I had hoped the conduct of Dr. Hampden, as Regius Professor of Divinity, and head of a theological board at Oxford, had effaced the memory of that unworthy proceeding. " I have the honour to be, my Lords and " Gentlemen, your obedient servant, " J. RUSSELL " To certain lay members of the Church of England." THE BISHOP OF NORWICH AND DR. HAMPDEN. Palace, Norwich, Dec. 1, 1847. My dear Lord,—On maturely considering the me morial which has been forwarded to me, against the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the see of Herefo:•d; not on the ground of any general unfitness for the office, or on any specific charge of heterodoxy, but because the University of Oxford has affirmed, by a solemn d e cree, its want of confidence in the soundness of his doctrivies," I feel I cannot conscientiously sign it for the following reasons:— lst.—Because I conceive that by such proceeding we are giving to an University censure an authority whicii in no way belongs to it, and which many of its most devoted friends have disclaimed. And further, that l can attach little weight to a decision emanating from Oxford on that occasion, bearing in mind that the move ment against Dr. Hampden originated with a party, suspected (how justly subsequent events have fully proved) of entertaining a strong leaning towards the Church of Rome. That the opinions, moreover, of many of those members of convocation who opposed Dr. Hampden were manifested with a bitterness of party spirit little creditable to them as members of a Christian community and a calm deliberative assembly; and that there is good reason for believing that the majority was obtained by votes given by mauy individuals who came up expressly for the purpose, though it was notorious that they had never read the works which they professed to condemn. tiah 2d. aeat — trel T nyt h i posant;t f 1842, virtually A. eivto wasen censureifthehiehx of 1836 were deserv ing st atute bya ein t e d D i n expressly s i s n y app Hampden to the office of Exami ner Theo logical Examinati on , and which was, by th e several ne oinflu ential members of the Uni • versity, understood to cancel the previous censure; and that, in the summer of 1842, stn attempt uttempt was made actuall • to rep eal the censure of 1836 ,which very nearly succeeded, supported as it waa by some of the most distinguished members of the Uni versity; amongst others, I believe, by no less than 15 out of 17 of the heads of colleges, and that it was op posed by a large portion of those well known for thoir Tractarian tendencies. 3 dly.—Because I believe Dr. Hampden to have been very unfairly treated, judged as he was by extracts se parated from their context, and many of them obscurely worded on points involving deep metaphysical reasoning, requiring unprejudiced and dispassionate investigations to decide upon. 4thly.—Because I consider that on other occasions, more especially in his inaugural lecture, he has shown clearly and unequivocally, and beyond all controversy, that his sentiments on, those particular topics on which he was supposed to be unsound, were in accordance with the formularies of our Church and with the Holy Scriptures. Such are the reasons for inducing me to withhold my signature to the memorial proposed to be presented by my Right Rev. Brethren, expressive of their disap probation of Dr. HtEinpden's appointment to the vacant sue of Hereford. I have only to add, though indeed I consider it scarcely necessary, that did 1. suspect Dr. Hampden in the slight est degree of holding opinions impugning the doctrines of the Trinity or the Atonement, I should not have hesi tated a single monata t in requesting that my name might COMMERCIAL DISTRESS. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Com mittee to inquire into the causes of the recent Commercial Distress do consist of twenty-six Members :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out the words " twenty-six," in order to insert the word " thirty," instead thereof:—Questioa put, " That the words ' twenty-six' stand part of the Question." The House divided ; MAJORITY-AYES, 136. Abdy, Thomas N. Fox, J. W. Palmer, Reundell Adair, R. Shaft° Gibson, T. M. Parker, John Aglionby, H. A. Gladstone, W. E. Pearson, Charles Anderson, Arthur Glyn, George Carr Peel, Sir Robert Anson, Colonel Goalburn, Henry Peel, Colonel Arundel, Earl of Gower, Leveson Pigott, Francis Baines, M. T. Grace, 0. D. J. Pilkington, James Baring, 1. T. Greene Thomas Plumptre, J. P. Beckett, William Gregson, Samuel Raphael, Alexander Bellew, K. M. Greufel , Charles W. Rawdon, Colonel Berkeley, Captain Grey, Sir G. Ricardo, Osman Birch, Sir Thomas Haggitt, F. R. Rich, Henry Black:ill, S. W. Hall, Sir B. Russell, F. C. H. Blake, M. J. Hallyburton, Lord Saiwey, Colonel Bouverie, E. P. Hardcastle, J. A. Smith, J. A' Bowring, Dr. lleadlam, T. E. Somerville, Sir W. Boyle, Robert E. Heathcote, Sir W. Spearman, IL J. Brotherton, Joseph Heywood, James Strutt, Edward Brown, Humphrey Hodges, T. Twisden Stuart,lLord D. Bunbury, Edward Howard, C. W.G. Talfourd, Sergeant Buxton, Sir E. Hutt, William Tancred, 11. W. Campbell, W. F. Jervis, Sir John Tenison, E. K. cardwell, Edward Jervis, John Tennant, .J. Carew, W. P. Keppel, George T. Thickness°, R. A. Carter, John B. Labouchere, Henry Thompson, Colonel Clay, James Lascelles, W. S. Thornely, T. Clements, Charles Lincoln, Earl of Townley, R. G. Clerk Sir G. Lindsay, Colonel Turner. George Cliliord, Henry M. Lockhart, A. E. Verney Sir li. Cocks, Thomas S. Mahon, O'Gorman Walmsley, Sir J. Colebrooke, Sir T. Maitland, T. Watkins, Colonel Corry,llenry Marshall, J. G. West, F. R. Craig, W. G. Marshall, William Westhead, J. P. Drummond, H. Martin, Samuel Willcox, Brodie Duke, Sir James Matheson, Colonel Williams, John Dancult, John Malik, Fox Wilson, James Dundas, Admiral Melgund, Viscount Wilson, Matthew Dundas, Sir David Mitchell, T. A. Wood, Sir Charles Dunne, Francis P. Morpeth, Viscount . Wood, W. P. Ebrington, Viscount Mostyn, E. M. L. Wyld, James Elliot, William J oh n E. Mulgrave, Earl Wyvill, Marmaduke Evans, Nugent, Sir Percy Young, John Ferguson, Sir R. O'Brien, Sir Lucius TZLLEILS. Fitzpatrick, J W. Ogle, S. C. Forster, Mathew Paget, Lord A. Hill, Lord M. Fortescue, J. W. Paget, Lord Clarence Tufnell, Henry Fox, Richard M. Paget, Lord George MINORITY-NOES, 45. Anstey, Thomas Harris, Hon. Capt. Reynolds, John Arkwright, G. Bastin, Alexander Rufford, Francis Barrington, Viscount Hastie, Archibald St. George, Chris. Bentinck, Lord G. Henley, J. W. Sandars, George Blnwitt, It. J. Berries, John C. Scott, Francis Ilroadwood, H. Hildyart, R. C. Scully, Francis Cayley, Edward S. JoMire, Sir W. H. Seymer, Henry Ker Clive, Vise.' Keating, Robert Smith, John B. Coles, Henry B. Lockhart, W. Smollett, A. Deering, John P. M'Naghten, Sir E. Stanley, Edward l)evereux, John T. Masterman, J. Wakley, Thomas Disraeli, B. Munta, G. F. Walsh, Sir J. B. Edwards, Henry Mure, Colonel Wawn, J T. Fagan, William O'Flaherty, Anthony TELLERS. Forbes, W. Osborne, Ralph Spooner, Richard Greene, John _ Renton, John C. Stuart, J. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S.—YESTERDAY. THE WOLVERHAMPTON STEEPLECHASE. 4 to 1 agst Lord Strathmore's The Switcher—taken and offered 6 to 1 agst Captain Little's Chandler 10 to 1 aget Lord Strathmore's St. Leger—taken and offered 13 to I agst Mr. Holman's Edward the First-15 to 1 taken 15 to 1 agst Mr. John Mytton na Marengo—taken 15 to 1 agst Mr. Barry's Sir Arthur—taken. DERBY. 11 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Surplico—taken 1,000 to 30 agst Mr. B. Green's Beverlac—t and offered 40 to 1 agst Mr. Greville's Rosslyn—taken to 2001. 40 to I agst Mr. Nunn's The Fowler—take 50 to 1 Offers to lay 1,000 to 70, or take 1,000 to 35 about Springy Jack. Very few members present, and not above a dozen bets laid. HUNTING APPOINTMENTS. Her Majesty's stag hds., Fri., Beaconsfield-11. Lord Parker's hds., Tues., Brightwell House; Fri., the Leather Bottle, Bledlow Ridge. Mr. Drake's hds., Tues., Blotchington; Thurs., Tus mere House; Sat., Trafford Bridge. The Berkshire hds., Wed., Foxcombe Hill; Fri ~ Cox well Wood. „ • _ _ The V. W. 11., Tues., the Three Magpies; Thurs., Ly diard Plain; Sat., Kemble Gate. The Warwickshire hds.,Tues.,Mitford Bridge; Thurs., Hampton Lucy; Fri., Wroxton Abbey ; Sat., Spernal Park. _ The F. B. hds., Fri., Peleau Cross. Mr. Horndon's hds., Thurs., Lifton Park-104. Mr. Napper's hds., Thurs., Ingram's Farm; Sat., Frith Hill, North Chapel. Coble } r W'r Corner-114. , rhra the de D—mul ' k s li. hds., Wed., Duncton Hill ; Fri., Gm The Crawley and Horsham hds., Wed., West Grin. stead; Mr. Watson's hds., Wed., Linden; Fri., Rothley Vil lage-10i. Mr. Sehy's hds., Thurs., Ingram-104. The Durham County hds., Wed., Stoney Gate; Fri., Plawsworth Turnpike Gate-104. The Tindale hds., Thurs., Garrett Hott-104. The Dulverton harrs., Fri., Shercombe Farm, Kings brompton. The Raby hds., Wed., Hamsterley; Fri., Windle stone-104. Mr. Hildyard's harrs., Fri., Acklaw Blue Bell-104. Mr. S. Lowndes's hds., Wed., Souldern Windmill-11. The Marham harrs., Thurs., Mr. Gamble's Shouldham Thorpe; Sat., Swaffliam Race Course-11. The Sinnington hds., Tues., Cawton; Fri., Welburn. Sir H. Seale's hds., Tues., Burleston Wood; Fri., Ash prington Post. York and Ainsty hds., Tues., Dringhouses; Thurs., Pill Moor, Brafferton; Sat., Melbourne Hall-104. The Puckeridge hds., Wed., Widdington; Sat., Cum belowe-104. The Wigton harrs., Wed., Wellington; Sat., Syke—S. The Cambridgeshire hds., Wed Shearbatch Wood; Fri., the Kennell _ _ _ The Cleveland hds., Thurs., Coatham Village-10i. The Oakeley hds., Thurs., Wootton Village; Sat., Shelton Village-104. The Hurworth hds., Tues., Hornby Village; Sat., Hilton. The Albrighton hds., Tues., Belbroughton Village; Thurs., Hunnington, near Hagley; Sat., Wassel Top. The Bedale hds.,lWed., Uornby Castle; Fri., Scruton Hall-11. The Cheltenham stag hds., Wed, Puesdown•, Sat., Beech Pike-12. The South Berkshire hds., Tues., Westrip Green; Sat., Maidenhead Thicket-10i. Carmarthen hda., Tues., Llanharry; Fri„Penlan-10, Lord Elcho's hds., Tues., L ou li n Bridge; Wed., Corn hill; Fri., Preston by Dense ; Sat., Marchmont. The Essex and Suffolk hds., Fri., Gifford's Hall. Mr. Fellowes's hds., Tues., Gidley Arms. The Gilsland hds., Thurs., Hornsby Gate. The H. H., Tues., Matterly Gate; Thurs., Bradley; Sat., Hartley Church. The East Kent hds., Wed., Sellinge Lees; Fri., Bos singham-street. Ludlow hds., Tues., Munslord ; Fri., Wigmore Rolls. The N. F. H., 'rues., at the Kennell; Thurs., White parish; Sat„ Breamore-10i. Lord Southampton's hds., Wed., Foxley; Fri., Astwell Mill; Sat., Shrob Village -11. The United Pack, Tues., Pantglas; Fri., Edgtun Gate. Craven harrs., Tues., Gargravo ; Fri., Stainton Coates. Lord Lonsdale's harrs., llockliffe Grange ; Sat., Cheddington. MRS. TROLLOPE'S NEW NOVE L , Tows AND d favourable knowledge reception and render it as , COUNTRY." — Its dashing p ort raiture of character, novel story, sustained of the world, will cu popular as any of t he author's previous productions. secure stuhsista work ined action a and Mrs. Trollope has a deeper insight into character than any novelist of the day. The Progress of sensation in her heroine's mind, by which, at first flattered by the attentions of the graceful Mr. Cuthbert, she is induced to believe she loves him, and can be happy with no one else, is traced with marvellous skill. The character of Mr. Cuthbert is drawn with extraordinary care and finish, and amuses us by its peculiarities. He is very wealthy, and has lived much in the gay world. He is a widower, but from having resided y years by him self and for himself, he has the habits of an old bachelor. Harriet Hartwell is barely_eighteen when he sees her, but she pays so much deference to his courtly manners and e l egan t person, that ho resolves to do her the great honour of making her Mrs. Cuthbert. She is then in troduced into the highest circles of fashionable life, and becomes a prime favourite with the Prince Regent.— Britannia. F REE BATHS AND WASimoUSE3. — Yesterday the committee of the Free Baths and Washhouses for the labouring c l asses , situate in Glasshouse-yard, East Smithfield, announced that their funds had for some time past been exhausted, but the establishment had been kept open at the individual expense of the members of the committee, they being unwilli ng, at a period like the present, when cleanliness of the p ersons and dwel lings of the poor are of such importance in the preven tion of disease, to close their doors against them, but which now they will be compelled to do unless funds are forthwith raised. The report for the past year stated that there had been 34,843 bathers, and 49,751 poor women have washed, dried, and ironed above a quarter of a million of clothing for their families; there being an increase in bathers and washers over the preceding year of nearly 15,000 individuals. In addition to these gratuitous benefits many hundred poor in the neigh bourhood have had pails, brushes, and whitewash sup plied them for cleansing dwellings. The whole cost of the establishment amounted to 3171. 2s. 5d., and the ex pense of cleansing the dwellings was 15/. ss. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY AFTERNOON.—We are glad to find that the steam ship Hibernia, which sailed from Liverpool on the 4th instant for Boston, has weathered the late gales unharmed, as we find that she was spoke by the Stirlingshire, from Maranham, on the Bth instant, • in lat. 50 30 N., long. 12 W., " all well." )1:4,1\ - (1 4,11 S L \