The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a land-
lord in Ireland, stating that his tenants on whom he had
distrained had cut off and carried away the standing corn,
and praying that measures might be adopted for the protec-
tion of life and property in Ireland. Also a petition
from some place in Denbighshire, praying the [louse to
adopt measures to punish those priests who published
the bull " /n ccena domini," which censured the Queen
and her loyal Protestant subjects ; and also to punish
those priests who denounced persons from the altar.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented several peti-
tions against Jewish emancipation.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented several
petitions in favour of that measure.
Lord FARNHAM presented several petitions praying
for sone measure to punish denunciations by Catholic
priests from the altar. Also a petition from the magis-
trates and other inhabitants of the county of Tipperary,
complaining of the inefficiency of the measure introduced
by the Government for the repression of crime and
outrage in Ireland, and praying for a measure of re-
pression of a general and permanent character.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition
from Hyde, in the Isle of Wight, praying the House to
adopt measures to prevent the publication of the Bull
" In cam Domini" in these realms.
CASE OF DR. HAMPDEN.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY and the Marquis
of LANSDOWNE rose together, and both commenced
speaking. The Marquis of Lansdowne, however, gave
way to
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, who asked
whether the remonstrance of the bishops against the
recommendation of the Rev. Dr. Hampden to the see of
Hereford, addressed to Lord J. Russell, is an authentic
document, and whether the Govercment intended to
persevere in that recommendation ? He could not but
recollect that when, under a former Administration,
a certain diplomatic appointment had been made, the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government had come
forward and challenged that appointment, and that
in consequence of the challenge of that appointment
the person so appointed had at once waived that appoint-
ment,e and he thought he had a right, acting upon the
t:areple of the Noble Lord to challenge this appoint-
,ent- He was aware the Crown had that right to make
tue aPPointmen but he challenged it as unwise and inex-
pedient at a timet4 when controversy in the Church was so
rife.yar d He
in
tsruteshtedtmhe appointment would not be hurried for-
a taking place in thisn ell' as to prevent any discussion on
The Marquiaof
queetiouse, as in another place.
LANSDOWNE would confine himself
to answering. the
had given notice, and wo°ulldof which the Noble Marquis
go into the particulars of
his speech. He laelievedeetehert4the published correspon-
dence between LordJ.R
would
dd the Bishops was correct
refer to the Gazelle, he
and if the Noble Marquis
heertiliiss.ued, and that,
would find the conga ',lire had
therefore, it was the intention of
ment to persevere in the appointment.
ajebty's Govern-
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that it was with
appointmente
regret that he heard the determination nof th
Govern-
ment to persevere in the
Hampden. There was no person more opposed
Dr.
than he was to Tractarian
.. principlesPP°a'nel
he believed that the great majority of the clergy of his
diocese entertained the same views with himself; but al-
though he was strongly opposed to tractarian views, and
had a great respect for Lord John Russell personally,
yet he considered that other persons besides those
holding tractarian views were opposed to
i the appoint-
ment of Dr. Hampden. He thought that f the appoint-
ment were brought before a proper tribunal it would not
take place. He believed Dr. Hampden to be
a very excellent person, but he considered that
he held erroneous doctrines. He believed that
it was necessary to confirm the appointment
by the imposition of hands by other bishops, but he
begged to say that he would not be a party concerned.