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

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 persons nominated by
Clihine
in the words of Burnet than in my own .
King
James
raneds Onx”foinrd ;
" Cartwright was promoted to Chester. The see of
thea
nyder
w,
olatiB6 ,ratoth
efirl lotvhee
ths eoescasoef
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 complete 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 " deeply regrets"—l doubt not sin-
cerely—"o the feeling that is said. to be common among
Hampden,
the clergy on this subject." " But," irnyaou add,
cannot sacrifice the reputation of Dr. pden, the
rights of the Crown, and what I believe 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, feeling be indeed "founded on
misapprehension,' let itis e proved to bo sa; if it be
..fomented by prejudice," do not give to that prejudice
the increased momentum of a deep 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 credit. I thank 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 yeur reflecting hours—a security 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, and 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 decree,
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.
tiah2d.aeat—trelTnythi posant;t f 1842,
virtually
A.
eivto wasen censureifthehiehx
of 1836 were deserv-
ing statutebyaein t e d D in
expressly sisn y app
Hampden to the office of Examiner
Theo-
logical Examination, and which was,
by th e
severalne 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 repeal 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.
3dly.—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

be affixed to the memorial, with my fullest concurrence
and approbation of its object.
I remain yours very truly
E. NORWICH.

To the Lord Bishop of

TIIE ELEVENTH VOLUME OF
LIVES OF THE QUEENS
OF ENGLAND,
BY AGNES STRICKLAND,
IS NO N 7 READY AT ALL THE BOOKSELLERS.
N.B. The Twelfth Volume will complete this important work.
Henry Colbarn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.

Now ready, in post evo., price 10s. 6d., with Portraits and Plates.
ADVENTURES OF AN ANGLER
In CANADA, NOVA SCOTIA, and the

UNITED STATES.
By CHARLES LANMAN.
Richard Bentley. New Barlington-street.
(Publisher ia Ordinary to her Majesty.)

RAILWAY SHARES BY PUBLIC SALE.
MESSRS. LAMOND and Co., RAILWAT
SHARE AUCTIONEERS, beg to thank their Friends
and the Public Par their continued support and patronage, and
to announce that their Public Sales of Railway Shares, &c.,
take ;mace every WEDIUSDAT, at One o'clock, (instead of Tuesday
and Friday, Li hitherto), at the Hall of Commerce, Threadneedle-
street, London, to which place, favours, containing instructions
(with a reference), are respectfully requested is be addressed.
All Scrip and Share Certificates must be deposited, the day
previous to their being offered; and advices of results will be
f.rwarded by the first post after the sale, and the proceeds imme-
diately disposed of according to instructions.
N.B. Sales and purchases of all descriptions of stook and shares
effected by private contract, every day, as usual.
flail of Commerce. Threadneedle-street. London.

THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET.
Uzier the Management of Mr. B. Webster, sole Lessee.
THIS EVENING

Will be performed the Comedy of THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL.
Sir Peter Teazle, Mr. Ferren ; Sir Oliver Surface, Mr. Tilbury - Sir
Benjamin Backbite, Mr. A. Wigan ; Joseph Surface, Mr. Cres;ick ;
Charles Surface, Mr. Henry Farren ; Careless, Mr. H. Vandenhoff ;
Rowley, Mr. Gough ; Moses, Mr. Webster ; Snake, Mr. Braid ; Sir
Barry, Mr. Caulfield; Crabtree, Mr. Rogers ; Trip, Mr. Brindal.
Lady Teazle, Mrs. Nisbett ; Mrs. Candour, Mrs. Glover; Lady Sneer.
well. Mrs. W. Clifford ; Maria, Miss E. Messent.
To be followed by MY WIFE'S MOTHER. Uncle Foozle, Mr.
Farrell ; Mr. Budd, Mr. Hell ; Mrs. Quickfldget, Mrs. Glover; Mrs.
Itudd. Miss Julia Bennett.
to conclude with a new and original Farce, :called WHO'S MY
HUSBAND ? Doctor Mull, Mr. Tilbury; Daniel Tootles, Mr. Keeley;
Mrs. imith Thompson, Mrs, W. Clifford; Sophonisba Mull, Mrs. L.
S. Buckingham ; Sally Starch, Mrs. Ilumby.
Stage Manager, Mr. Farren ; Acting Manager, Mr. F. Webster.
J. T. Archer, Box-book keeper.
Boxes, ss. ; Pit, 3s. • Gallery, 2s. ; Upper Gallery, Is.
Doors open at Half-past glx, Performance to commence at Seven.

THEATRE ROYAL, ADELPHI.
Under the direction of Madame Celeste.
THIS EVENING

Will be performed, the celebrated Comedy of PAUL PRY. Frank
Hardy, Mr. Stoker; Witherton, Mr. Cullenford; Somers, Mr. Wor-
rell ; Colonel Hardy, Mr. Lambert ; Mr. Stanley, Mr. Thomas ;
4rlJarry Stanley, Mr. Boyce ; Paul Pry, Mr. Wright ; Grasp, Mr. 0.
Smith ; Eliza, Miss M. Taylor ; Marian, Miss Emma Harding ; Mrs.
Subtle, Mrs. Yates ; Phcebe, Miss Woolgar.
To be followed by a new Farce entitled THE TIPPERARY LE-
GACY. Tumem Green, Mr. Wright ; Bob Gills, Mr. Munyard ;
Lanty Scrimmage, Mr. Paul Bedford ; Chubblock. Mr. Cullenford ;
Policeman, Mr. Sanders ; Lizzy Chubblock, Miss Woolgar.
To conclude with the Farce, entitled TIIIS HOUSE TO BE 30[.D
'the property of the late William Shakspeare), Inquire Within. Cha-
racters by Messrs. Wright, Cullenford, Worrell, 0. Smith, Paul Bed-
ford, Mrs. Laws, &c., &c.
Boxes, 45.; Pit, 2s. ; Gallery, Is.
Doors open at Half-past Six, Performance to commence at Seven.

ROYAL LYCEUM THEATRE.
Under the Management of Madame Vestris.
Sole Lessee, Mr. Charles Mathews.
THIS EVENING,

Will be performed a new Comic: Drama called PEGGY GREEN.
After which, a new Comic Drama, entitled THE TRAGEDY
QUEEN.
After which, THE RING DOVES.
To conclude with a Comic Drama, called A ROUGH DIAMOND.
Dress Boxes, Is. ; Upper Boxes, 4s. ; Pit, 2s. ; Gallery, Is. No
half-price to any part of the house.
The New Box-office, No. 2, Wellington-street, is open to the
Public every day, Iron Ten till Six.
The Interior of the House has been entirely re-designed by Mr. W.
Bradwell of the Colosseum.

PRINCESS'S THEATRE.
Madame ANNA THILLON.
THIS EVENING
A new Comic Opera, entitled THE AMBASSADRESS. Duke de
Valberg, Mr. Bodda ; Benedict, Mr. Barker ; Fortunatus, Mr. Lef-
ler; Countess de Fierschomberg, Miss Villars; Madame Barneck,
Mrs. Selby ; Charlotte, Miss Arnie Romer ; Henriette, Madame
Anna Thillon.
To conclude with the Comedy of THE HONEYMOON. Duke
Aranza, Mr. Cooper; Couut Montalban, Mr. C. Fisher; Rolando,
'Mr. 3. Vining ; Jacque., Mr. Conaptoa ; Juliana, Miss Cushman ;
Volantc. Miss Susan CUSI2SIOII.
Dress Circle, Is. ;- lit, 2s. ; Gallery, Is.

FRENCH PrAVS.—ST. JAMES'S THEATRE.
Lessee, Mr. John Mitchell, 33, tlldi 114,nd-street.
TO-MORROW EVENING.

Will be presented LE CIIEF-D(ELTVRE INCONN U. Maitre
Michel, M. St. NI arse ; Rolla, H. Fechter ; Stephano, Mdlle. Baptiste
After which, LE REVEIL DU LION. M. Stadislaus de Fon-
blanche, M. Cartigny ; Rector Matdeols, 111. Alontalami ; Charlotte
de Villedieu, Madame Vainly.
To conclude with LE SECRET DE MON ONCLE. Deejobert,
M. Henri Adis ; Ernest Dupare, Montaland.
A detailed prospectus of the general arrangements, and of the
pieces which will be produced during the season, may be had at Mr.
Mitchell's Royal Library, 33, Old Bond-street ; and at the Doi-office
of the Theatre, which is open daily, from 11 to 5.
Boxes, 6s. ; Pit, 3s. 6d.; Amphitheatre, 38. ; Gallery, 2s