The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 17.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lord
Chancellor, fonk his seat upon the Woolsack shortly
after Five o'clock.
MEDALS TO THE NAVY.
Lord COLVILLE asked whether it was intended to
recommend any extension of the order made in the
month of June last, recommending an extension of the
distribution of medals for services in the navy.
The Earl of AUCKLAND replied that a deputation
of officers had represented to the Admiralty the pro-
priety of such extension, and that the Admiralty was
prepared to recommend an extension of such distribution.
There was no objection to furnish the Noble Lord with
any information he might desire on the subject.
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 House to
adopt measures to punish those priests who published
the bull " In canna 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 some 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 Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, praying the House to
adopt measures to prevent the publication of the bull
" In ozone 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, was an authentic
document, and whether the Government 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 that challenge the person as
appointed had at once waived that appointment,
and he thought he bad a right, acting upon the
example of the Noble Lord, to challenge this-appoint-
ment. He was aware the Crown had the right to make
the appointment, but he challenged it as unwise and inex-
pedient at a time when controversy in the Church was so
rife. He trusted the appointment would not be hurried for-
ward in inch a manner as to prevent any discussion on
it taking place in that House, or in another place.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would confine himself
to answering the question of which the Noble Marquis
bad given notice, and would not go into the particulars of
his speech. He believed that the published correspon-
dence between Lord J.Rusaell and the Bishops was correct;
and if the Noble Marquis would refer to the Gazelle, he
would find the coag4 d'Stire had been issued, and that,
therefore, it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to persevere in the appointment.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that it was with
regret that be heard the determination of the Govern-
ment to persevere in the appointment of Dr.
Hampden. There was no person more opposed
than he was to Tractarian principles, and
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 the appoint-
ment of Dr. Hampden. He thought that if 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.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should, after
the recess, at the earliest convenient opportunity, pre-
sent his Bill for the consolidation of the criminal law.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order of
the day for the third reading of the Crime and Outrage
(Ireland) Bill.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA complained that the
Government had not adopted more energetic mea-
sures, and said, unless they were adopted, the dreadful
state of disorganization would go on. These outrages
had not arisen from distress. They had occurred in the
most prosperous parts of Ireland, and increased the dis-
tress by driving from Ireland the resident land-
lords. If the Government had acted with huma-
nity, it would long since have proclaimed
military law in those districts, and tranquillity would
have been restored. The present measure would prove
utterly inefficient, if it did not even tend to the encou-
ragement of crime.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY contended that
no measure would be of any effect which did not deprive
the people of Ireland generally of the possession of arms.
If there were no arms to attack, there would be no need
to permit persons to retaiu arms for defence.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE stated that the Bill
having now passed, it might be convenient for him to
state that it would receive the Royal assent by Com-
mission on Monday, and that on the same day he should
move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till the
3d of February.—(Hear, hear.)
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of DEVON, this Bill went
through Committee.
The Earl of DEVON then moved the suspension of
the standing orders, in order that the remaining stage
of the Bill might be taken.
Lord MONTEAGLE opposed the suspension of the
standing orders. This was a most important measure,
and should not be hurried through the House without
due consideration ; besides, it was a Bill of that de-
scription which should only be introduced by a member
of the Government. He admitted that it had been fully
considered in another place, but that was no reason
why it should not be fully considered by their Lord-
ships.—(Hear, hear.) Having complained of the pro-
fligate manner in which the funds raised for public
works in Ireland had been expended, his Lordship con-
cluded by declining to oppose the Bill further, merely
expressing a hope that in future care would be taken to
avoid a recurrence of former errors.
The Earl of DEVON said that the Bill had been
asked for by a great majority of the Irish gentry and
landowners, and its object was merely to :complete roads
which were at present in an impassable state. The
expenses were to come out of the pockets of the rate-
payers.
The Bill was read a third time, and on the question
that it do pass.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN opposed the motion.
The House divided, when there appeared—
Contents
Non.contents 4
Majority
The House adjourned at Seven o'clock until Monday
next.

&;41 ,j
2 Z
c.)5

135
452
630
57A
21
2,927

8,485

405
2,003
835

16,93

7,927

34,975

659
6,04
5,193
1,648

494
16,626

1,795
1.193
1,170
5,616