The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-25 00:00:00

OUTGOING MAILS.

The teals for Vigo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, Cada, and Gibraltar,
will be made upon the 27th ofJuly.
Male for brain north AMMOs and the Vatted State, will be
Wide up on the evening of the 27th of July.
The West India Mall, iodating lama* Sanaa, Nana,
Nealures, New Orleans, and Maw, and excluding those to:
Marts; St Juso•doNieeragua, New Grenada, Chili, and Pees, ail;
In soda op on the bed of August.
11111 mails tor Madeira, lb. sod Buenos Ayres, villa, made
upon the 4th of August
Its mails, rin Marealles, ha the Mediterranean, Egypt, Ceylon.
India, Bong-Kong, la., will be seade up on the evening of the 7th
August
lir malls for Gibraltar, Mrßa, MINS, the lonian Islands. IgYnt
Osylas, India, and Mia. wis tat will be sumo up on
the naming of the leth of August.

MGR WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tun DA, —Motelag,l7 We. pan 6. All USIS 6 sla.pent
Te-Ilksawir-166n5ur.31 WA. Pot I; AftemeNss W. Pm' •

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 25.

WELL might the return on " Church Pluralities,"
just presented to the House of Commons, on Mr.
Humes motion, provoke the inquiry Mr. FazwEN
made of the Home Secretary, the other evening!
For the state of things it discloses is very discreditable
to the Episcopal Government of the Cnurch of Eng-
land ; and demands, what it will, no doubt. receive, the
serious attention of parliament, whenever Mr. Hoes-
MAM can induce the legislature to go into the ques-
tion of Church Reform. From the time of HENRY
VIIL down to the reign of VICTORIA the policy
of legislation on this subject has been the dis-
couragement of church pluralities. Yet, it now turns
oat that the bishops are still doing all that legislation
has left within their power to promote that evil.
And the power left them by parliament is
much greater than is generally supposed. Before,
however, setting forth the facts which Mr. Hume's
return has brought to light, let us very briefly glance
at the progress of legislation on the matter. An
historical retrospect will assist us in seeing the full
enormity of contemporary practices.
By the common law of this realm, and by the canon
law of the church, no ecclesiastical person can hold
two benefices rime: et awl, as the old books have it.
Upon taking the second benefice the first would, were
reference made to either branch of law, become void.
At an early period, however, the Pope seems to have
granted dispensations ; but the exercise of this
power in England is &aid by more than one grea
text writer to have been an " usurpation." Notwith-
standing its original illegality the practice prevailed.
And the bishops appear to have endeavoured in this
respect to follow the Pope's example ; but episcopal
dispensations were expressly rendered illegal by the
decision of a General Council. By whomsoever dis-
pensations were granted, the evil of plurality of
ecclesiastical benefices had become, on the dawn of
the Reformation, oce of the great scandals of the
Roman catholic church. And it was amongst the
first of its mal-practices which was attempted to be
corrected in England by HENRY VIII.
For that purpose the 21 HEN. VIII., cap. 13,
was enacted; and it is probable that the reli-
gious and pastoral objects of the parochial sys-
tem were never b.Cer or more comprehensively
stated than in the preamble of this act. " For
the more quiet and virtuous increase and main-
tenance of divine service, the preaching and teaching
the word of Gad, with godly and good example giving,
the better discharge of curates, the maintenance of
hospitality, the relief of poor people, the increase of
devotion, and the gall opinion of the lay-fee toward
the spiritual person ; it was thereby enacted that ifi
any person, having one bee efice with core of souls of
the yearly value of 81. or above, should accept another,
the first benefice should be void. Some exceptions
were, however, made to this useful enactment, and
they, of course, were in the aristocratic spirit of the
Tudor age. The exceptions were principally in favour
of the chaplains of royal and great personsges. Itoyai
chaplains might, for example, ho!d three benefices,
and the chaplains of noble families two benefices.
Tile immediate results of this statute were, how-
ever, excellent ; it increased the efficacy of the
parochial system at a time when the system was in-
valuable—the commencement of the Reformation ;
and if in subsequent reigns its provisions were some-
what 'buried, it at all events bore testimony to the
righteous spirit of British legislation on the subject of
a great ecclesiastical abuse.

Uufurtunately the spirit of this statute was not
cirried out by succeeding parliaments so as to
suit the existing aid altering position of bene-
fices. It prohibited pluralities only when beto-
ken were of the yearly value of Si. or above;
and the principle on which that value was to be
ascertained appears never to have been judicially
settled. For a long succession of years the
sum at which benefices were rated fir first-fruits in
the King's bodes was accepted as the test of their
✓alue, and therein the great proportion of benefices
was entered at less than hi. And, though at a later
period this doctrine was questioned, and the more
ralcnal test of actual value was contended for, the
question does not St em to havu received an authorised
'dation. So, in yoint of fact, the law remained until
our own times. Somethinr, indeed, was done to re-
press the growing evil of non-residence by the 57
Geo. 111., cap. 99; but so tenderly, that for all prac-
tical purpsea, the 1 & 2 Vic , cap. 100, found the law
as to pluralities much as the 21st HEY. VIII., cep 13,
had lei% it.

By the statute of the present reign just mentioned,
it was enacted that not more than two benefices,
cathedral or otherwise, shall be holden together; nor
two benefices unless within ten miles of each other;
nor if the popu'ation of one benefice be greater than
3,000 ; nor if the two benefices be of the joint yearly
value of more than 1,0001. These were the prin-
ciples or rules laid down by the act ; but it was
clearly not the intention of the statute that every
clergyman who could get a presentation to two
benelices,within those conditions, should as a matter
of course be permitted to hold the two benefices.
For the statute goes on to provide that such
presentee shall only hold two benefices on a dig-
pensation to be granted by the archbishop of the pro-
vince ; and that such dispensation shall only be given
on a statement of particulars made to the archbishop
by the bishop of the diocese. The object of par-
liament in these provisions was, obviously, to
throw the responsibility of church pluralities
on the episcopal rulers of the church ; for they,
and they only, can grant dispensation, and the
amount of pluralities consequently depends altogether
on their voluntary act. The Act, in short, laid down
rules which the bishops had to carry out. It becomes
then important to know how the rulers of our church
have exercised the powers thus confided to them by
the legislature ; and this very interesting and valu-
able information Mr. HVME'S return gives.
It appears, then, from this reture, that since the
passing of the Pluralities Act the archbishops cf the
church of England, en the statement sad recom-
mendation of its bishops, hive granted dispensation
to 620 clergymen to hold 1,240 benefices, worth, at
the very least, 218,2281. a year, with a population, at
the least, of 625,323. We say that the above value
of these livings, and the above number of their popu-
lation,is stated in the return at their very lowest figure,
because the statute authorised the value to be estimated
after all outgoings are deducted, because we find the
value of benefices and their population given in the re
tarn to he frequently lower thin those contained in the
"Clergy List; and because the value of livings as stated
in the "Clergy List" is notoriously beneath the
actual value. But, take the totals brought out by
this return u the truth, the fact that since the
year 1838, 600 000 people and upwards have, by
the d section of Episcopal Order, been subjected
to ecclesiastical Pluralism is, we say, very discredita-
ble to the Church of England.
In some especial instances, doubtless, the poverty
of the two livi:gt thus epiecooally consigned to one
incumbeit may be pleaded in excuse. But no inch
plea can be est up in three-fourths of the cases in which

archiepiscopal dispensation hal been granted. Let as
take half-a-dozen indiscriminately :

NAM. Benefices. Value. r.o, rota.- Distance
0. W. Manny .. Viestsge al Cleolasty €499 1730 et miles.
linkt . 3.2 4.0
C. IL Renal
, Deans
W. &Freeman* *Reetory'ot Middle C syt 510 130 Isi mats.
Vleuage of East Clayton 328 1217
8.. Sang ate...n(7d Mil 544 614 l 2 miles.
rawkliam 221 205
Tsernien Relbseje, t East Allington 310 C 7 15
Castleton.. ... 477 644
T. Deaden:a Vgarageof liming
Rectory et Kohn Wake
J.R. White Flabary et ilizursaympto 458 777 mum
West Weelinstne 177 218
B. St. John salary el 343 334 2 miles.
„ „ Rathbun 3lB 248

These are far from being selected cases; the return
abounds with similar cases. Now, what justification
in one of the above is there for plurality of be-
nefice? Not income, certainly; for the lowest is
probably twice as high in income as a curate begins
life on. Not population ; for the smaller the popula-
tion of a parish the more efficieut ought the ministry
therein to be. Not distanc?; for in every one of these
cases the law requires the incumbent to keep a curate.
Wherein, then, are we to find justification for a dis-
pensation in such cases? And, if no reasonable ex-
cuse is to be found, what are we to think of the
episcopal rulers of • church who habitually grant- d
dispensations in such cues ?
To every candid mind and sincere churchman the
facts disclosed by Mr. Hume's return will establish
the abuse of that confidence which the 1 and 2 Vic.
cap. 106, reposed in the Episcopal Bench, and the
necessity for further curtailing the power confided in
the bishops by that statute. Mr. FREWEN, to do him
justice, bum, conservative though he be, to have felt
the force of the case against the bishops even before
this return was laid on the table of tie house. For
early in the present session, he introduced a bill "to
amend the law relating to the holding of bene-
fices in pluralities." This bill, as originally
introduced proposed to lower the value of the two
benefices, which might be held conjointly. But Mr.
FREWEN appears to have soon seen how defective the
test of value, when taken alone, is. So he quickly
altered his bill ; and, as it now stands (rejected,
else! on the motion of Lord JOHN RussELL!), he pro-
poses that parliament shall enact that two benefices shall
not be held by the same person unless actually con-
tiguous, and the united population be under GOO.
Bat to these Mr. FREWEN should also add a money
restriction. That added, his bill, if enacted, would
be good, as a step to a complete abolition of church
pluralities. For that is the end to be aimed at.
The poverty of benefices is, in troth, no reason for
the practice of pluralism. For in the great msjority
of cases vary poor benefices ere also very small nod
thinly peopled parishes, and the course to be pursued
with them is to annex them to the adjoining livings,
as Mr. Betour very properly proposed when discuss-
ing Lord ASHLEY'S motion r the division of great
parishes. And in the cases of large and populous
parishes with inadequate endowments, an appeal to
the voluntary principle is the true resource of the
church.

Tne Appropriation Bill has passed through com-
mittee, and parliament will do no more real work this
session. The financial results of the parliamentary
campaign, in so far as they admit of being stated in
figures, are not to brag of. Tte annual income and
the annual expenditure ken? oscillating between sur-
plus and deficit ; one year the balance is one way,
another the other. And ministers and their pulls-
mentaty majority have not been brought to re.,. about
any comprehensive and systematic plan of retrench-
ment and readjustment of taxation by which they
might at once relieve the public from the excessive
and unequally apportioned burden of taxation under
which it labour.,' and restore the finances of the
empire to a healthy condition.
Nor would our prospects be much more flattering if
we looked merely to the division lists of the I louse of
Commons. The earnest and reliable financial re-
formers are still but a minority in the house.
In February Mr. Wanes could only muster 78
votes in favour of his plan of financial reform against
197. In March, Mr. HUME'S amendment cn Mr.
1/Pruett's motion received only 70 votes against 394.
The division on Mr. DRUMMOND'S motion on the 19 h
inst., though full of promise for the future, hal only 71
votes recorded in favour of the important principle it
affirmed. When we turn from these votes on gene-
ral principles and comprehensive measures to the
more desultory war of special votes on items of the
estimates the result is even leas encouraging. The
divisions of this cla‘a have not been very numerous,
and the numbers tell a pretty similar talc to those
in the divisions we hare noted. Motions for
slight redactions in the numbers of men to
be voted for the sea and land services were respec-
tively supported by 59 against 144, and 48 against
182. A motion for roducieg the vote for staff
officers was supported by 17 against 50; a motion
for reducing the vote for civil contingencies by 1.5
against 47. It is clear that in the actual financial
business of the current as of former years, ministers
have been allowed to have pretty much their own
way.
Still it is obvious that even ministers are not mis-
led as to the nature and reliability of the support
they have to meet with. Their language and con-
duct show that they feel the old financial system, in
which they have been so anxious to persevere,
is breaking up ; that the support of partisans,
and the lenity of rivals, cannot be impli-
citly relied on much longer. They began the
session by concessions staftingly at variance with
their averments and professions of last year. In the
beginning of the session which preceded the one now
drawing to a close, ministers took high ground in de-
fence of the amount of their general expenditure, and
in particular in defence of their outlay on the army
and navy. They lowered their tone considerably be-
fore the close of that session. They were ob:iged to
grant a committee of inquiry on the cost and man-
agemerot of our defensive establishments ; and
the result of the very partial inquiries which the
committee wee able to bring to a close while parlia-
ment eat, was such that ministers voluntarily
came forward to propose, in an amended budget,
some small reductions in Oe army and navy
expenditure, which they had at first declared
to be rather below than above the mark ; and this
session they discovered that they could make still
further reductions. They profess to have reduced the
army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous estimates of
this year 1,500,000/. below those of last year. Al e
will not inquire at present how much of this retrench-
ment is real and how much only apparent. Enough
for our purpose that it proves that ministers feel
they mast give way to the general and growing des
mend for retrenchment. _ _

Turning from the contemplation of the conduct of
ministers as suggestive of hope for financial reformers,
what is the position of other parties in the legislature
and its augury? Various specific modes of reducing
items of national expenditure have been indicated during
the present cession, and have met with more or less of
support. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTM'S motion in
(*your of a more economical system of colonial go-
vernment received 89 votes. Mr. Hurr's committee
on the West African coast blockade have declared
that source of expense to be unavailing, and even mis-
chievous. Mr. Ht ME was supported by 48 of our
representatives in his attempt to have a more distinct
and satisfactory mode of conducting financial busi-
ness in the House of Commons adopted. The sup-
porters of these and other special measures of finan-
cial reform were not a compact unvarying party.
Members of all parties were found voting sometimes
for one, sometimes for another. The aggregate votes
on the divisions we have referred to indicate a grow-
ing sense of the necessity of some financial reform
I among men of all political shades of opinion.
It is not only in divisions that symptoms of this
growing conviction are to be found, nor are the symp-
toms confined to isolated members. The sturdy and
successful stand made by the financial reformers
against the indecent attempt to hurry the ordnance
votes through committee chows that part to be im-
proving in firmness and practical skill. The old tory
party, who have hitherto rallied under the flag of
protection, evidently begin to feel that it will not
serve their purpose, and are giving no unequivocal
signs of preparation to hoist the flag of
economy. The loose fish who hang upon the
skirts of the ministerial party, and of the party with
whom ministers seem on the eve of concluding a
coalition, are coquetting with retrenchment and finan-
cial reform. The dispositions visible in so many
quarters to conciliate public favour by promoting the
work of retrenchment, will increase with every
succeeding session, in proportion as the visions of

hustings and general elections draw nearer and
become more distinct.

Nor is it a mere vague and aimless sentiment in
favour of retrenchment that is springing up. Materials
are daily being accumulated for demonstrating its
necessity and possibility, and plans for carrying it
into effect are daily being moulded into mere
definite and practicable shapes. The comm•ttee of last
session on the miscellaneous estimates, tho com-
mittees of the laA and present sessions on the
navy, army, and ordnance estimates, the committee
on slave trade suppression, the committees on the
woods and test ate, and various colonial committees
have dragged to light an enormous mass of wasteful
expenditure and misapplications and wanton waste
of public money. The labours of Dr. BOWRING to
promote the adoption of better methods of national
boek-keeping, the labours of Sir WILLIAM MOLES-
WORTH to establish a more economic it system of colo-
nial government, the labours of Lord Di:NCAN in the',
deoartment cf the woods and forests, the labours of
Dieters. HLME and COBDEN in exposing the unneces-
sary outlay on fleets and armies—all are 00-operating to
prepare materials for a comprehensive system of finan-
cial reform. The discussions in the House of Commons
on local taxation, on the unfair distribution of the
burden of taxation, and the merciless and reiterated
exposures of that official indolent: and that dogged
adherence to old abuses which is the only impedi-
ment to financial reform, have not been lost either
upon parliament or the general public.
Though barren in immediate results, the session
now drawing to a close has been most important as
preparatory to a great financial contest. Ministers
feel the ground giving way beneath their feet. This
is apparent in their actual concessions, more apparent
in their lavish hints of greater concessions to be
made hereafter. In general we are little die-
po-ed to rely upon ministerial promises
of future good behaviour, but the revelations andthe
temper of the House of Commons are a guarantee
that ministers will not spend the recess idly. The
parliamentary proceedings of the last fortnight have
read them too rough a lesson.
It is only necessary for financial reformers in par-
liament and out of doors to be on the alert to prevent
these good imp essions from being effaced. The pole-
star by which they are to steer their course
is clear: large reductions in the army and navy;
improved organisation in every department of govern-
ment, especially in the Treasury and Exchequer ;
equitaVe re-adjustment of taxation. We believe that
pereeveranee and activity will in a few years ensure
these reforms even without parliamentary reform.
But we believe that parliamentary reform will be no-
cessary to keep the cyst- m right after it has been
amended. And the people can reform parliament
themselves through the instrumentality of the forty-
shilling franchise.