The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-02 00:00:00

sent that in the tone and tenor. of his observations he
entirely concurred.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that
the bishops and clergy would have no hesitation in
making returns of their incomes should such returns be
deemed necessary for the public good; and, indeed, a
proof of their promptitude had been given in 1813,
when a requisition of that nature was at once complied
with. But in this case it was not the incomes of the
bishops and clergy which alone were required.—(Hear,
near.) The lessees would be called upon to state the
incomes they derived from Church property, and then
they would find a difficulty which must be treated
with all delicacy and caution.—e(Hear, hear.) The
Honourable and Learned Member for Cockermouth had
spoken of the miserable incomes of some of the clergy,
and had given it as his opinion that no clergyman should
have less than 3001. a year. He (Mr. Goulburp) did
not consider the state of existing benefices of so much
importance as the means of providing new ones, so as to
meet the wants of a rapidly increasing population, He
admitted with the Hon. and Learned Member that non •
residence was an evil, but it was one which had been
greatly abated during the last few years. From returns
furnished in 1835, it appeared that out of 10,571 benefices,
the number then existing in England, 6,792 were resident,
and 3,779 non-resident. The latest return was that of
1844, which showed that while the number of benefices
had increased to 11,127, the number of non-residents
was only 2,800. Since that time, from the steps which had
been taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to provide
residences, it might fairly be presumed that the number
of non-residents had further diminished. But he had no
wish to confine their exertions to what had &ready been
done, and therefore should cheerfully concur in any
measure calculated to increase the efficiency of the
Church, and he trusted it would be done in a manner
calculated to carry with it the co-operation of the reli-
gious portion of the community. That the Church pro-
perty had not been managed in the best possible manner
was a fact that could not be denied, but still that was a
fate which it only shared in common with property
managed by lay incorporations. He believed that even
without the interference of Parliament great exertions
would be made by those interested in the religious in-
struction of the people to put it on a better footing;; and,
moreover, that any reasonable proposition would meet
with universal concurrence amongst the bishops k and
clergy of the Established Church.
Lord J. RUSSELL asked whether the Honourable and
Learned Member for Cockermouth would not withdraw
his motion.

Mr. lIORSMAN was quite in the hands of the House.
He was quite prepared to place full relianee on the as-
surance of the Noble Lord, ,but at the same time he
thought it right to state that lie had brought the subject
forward on various occasions, and had always been met
with the same answer, namely, that there was some dif-
ficulty in the way, but that the subject would be taken
into consideration. Ho felt the question to be so important
that he could not express too forcibly his hope 'that
during the recess no opportunity would be lost of en-
forcing upon those interested the necessity of obeying the
general opinion of that House and of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) When the House met next year, his first
duty on the first night of the session would be to ask the
Noble Lord what they were to expect as the results of
the recess. He trusted that the result would be a mea-
sure as comprehensive as the occasion required, and be
felt that in passing it the Noble Lord would have the full
concurrence of the House.—(Hear, hear.) He must say
that he had not been convinced by the reasoning of the
Noble Lord. He could not believe . that any bishop
would refuse his consent to the inquiry proposed, the
more especially as at present they required it from the
lessees on their application to renew their leases. The
Hon. and Learned Member in conclusion consented to
withdraw his motion.
Mr. FREWEN had remained in the House for the
purpose of recording his vote in favour of the motion of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Cockermouth. With
respect to pluralities, of which a great deal had been
said, he could not help wishing that the Archbishop of
Canterbury would take the course which some years
since had been adopted by the Primate of Ireland,
namely, that of refusing to grant to any clergyman a
dispensation to hold more than one benefice.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
CASE OF THE SHRAPNELL FAMILY.

Mr. URQUHART being called on, said that, in the
absence of the Secretary to the Board of Ordnance,. he
would postpone his motion relative to the claims of the
above family on account of the invention of the late
General Shrapnell until the next supply night.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped, looking at the state of
public business, that the Hon. Member would fix his
motion for a notice night.
Mr. URQUHART could have disposed of his motion
in five minutes had the Secretary of the Board of Ord-
nance been present. He must persist in fixing it for
the Committee of Supply.
Motion postponed until the first supply night.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Nine o'clock.