The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-23 00:00:00

t Ii• ti it ti t• •
adopt Ate sugge§tion ot e t —6nt.etnart
(Mr. Ferries.) The motion was accordingly With;
drawn; and On the motion of Mr. it was
ordered that there be laid before the liouse Copies
Of all the evidence which had been taken befdre the
rindriee Committee and of all the documents which
had been laid before them; and Which had been

printed for their use.
REV. AIR. WRAY'S CAS.
Mr. HUME rose to move for a return of the
number of Archdeacons of the Established Church
in each Diocese of England and Wales, sheaving
such as had been resident and non-resident during
the whole of the seer 1828; Ile observed, that
this motion was the more necessary; ifi consequence
of the correspondence that had lately taken place
between a clergyman in Lincolnshire and the Bishop
Of his diocese. Looking at the number of beneficed
clergymen in Lincolnshire, it certainly appeared that
the selection of Mr. Wray's case, to say the least of
it, was invidious. By papers presented in 1814 it
appeared, that out of 10,602 beneficed clergymen,
only 3,798 were resident; to which number might
be added 1,900, who, though non-resident, did duty.
Making some further allowances on various grounds,
the result of the whole was, that 4,800 beneficed
clergymen did no duty whatever. When certain
returns, for which he had already moved, were laid
upon ie table, it would be seen whether any, and
what improvement had recently taken place in the
system of residence; but they would not give him
the information he wished to procure regarding the
Archdeacons. It appeared that a solitary indivi-
dual had been removed ; and he (Mr. Hume) was
willing to believe that the motive had been the pro-
motion of the welfare of the church. He wanted to
know how many others were similarly circumstanced,
and had not been removed. It seemed that the
Archdeacon, at whose instance the Rev. Mr. Wray,
Vicar of Bardney, had been removed, did not him
self reside within the Diocese of Lincoln, but at
Bexley, in Kent. There were 1,254 Benefices in
the Diocese of Lincoln, which included six coun-
ties; but the Bishop was himself the Master of a
College, and not being himself, therefore, resident,
some little fellow-feeling might be expected for Mr.
Wray. The non-residents by exemption in that
diocese were 367 ; the non-residents by license
354; and the non-residents without exemption or
license, 178. In the whole there were 861 non-
residents who did no kind of duty, and only 628
who resided and did duty. The individual serving
the parish church of Bardney received 601. a year,
and he had a small addition from a neighbouring
parish, and he was told that he could not superintend
the interests of two parishes. He had 13 children ;
and although in a public point of view this fact pre-
sented no peculiar claim, yet it did afford a plea
on the score of humanity, and it might be supposed
to have had some weight with a Bishop and an Arch-
deacon. The individual also in this case had been
ready to do the two duties, and for the sake of his
large family he might have been permitted so to eke
out his income. It became, therefore, necessary to
see how far the Archdeacons discharged their duty,
and if, when the Return for which he moved was
laid before the House, it should appear that this
particular Archdeacon in question was himself non-
resident, every body would be at liberty to draw
their- own conclusions how far the interests of the
Church were promoted by their example of severity;
and whether it would not be proper, in the next
Session, to call upon the Bishop and all others to
proceed with the same strictness in other eases.
He need not again quote opinions he had before
cited, on the evil of non-residence and pluralities.
His calculations in 1822, formed with the assistance
of two Clergymen, shewed 5,845 individuals held
all the livings in England, and that the number of
Curates was 4,420. The case of the Rev. Mr.
Wray might be a hard one, under all the circum-
stances; but it was an excellent example on some
accounts; and he trusted the House would take
care that it was followed up; and, by preventing
non-residence, compel Clergymen to perform their
sacred functions. The Hon. Member moved an
Address to the Crown for the information required.
Mr. HERRIhS objected to the motion, on the
ground that Archdeacons were not bound to reside,
did not reside, and ought not to reside in their dio-
cese. • Their duty was not confined to a particular
spot, but.to make visitations at stated periods. An
Archdeacon, not habitually resident, was on some
accounts to be preferred. lie ought, on some ac-
counts, to be a stranger to those whom he was to
superintend.-His duty in the Church was something
similar to that of a Staff Officer in the army ; he was
not attached to any particular place, but was em-
ployed to inspect a district. He ought not perhaps
to be constantly interchanging familiarities and
civilities with persons who were subject to his au-
thority. At all events, the rules of the Church did
not impose residence as an obligation upon an Arch-
deacon. The Hon. Member, therefore, was asking
for something worse than idle; and no public object
or principle could be answered, by complying with
the motion. If the lion. Member could apply his
inquiries to the point, whether the Archdeacons dis-
charged their duties, and performed their visitations,
something might be gained. The lion. Member
moved for general information, in order to obtain
particular intelligence regarding one individual.
This was rather an objectionable mode of pro-
ceeding in itself, but at present no charge had
been made out against the Archdeacon, and least of
all could it be said, on the statement of the Hon.
Member, that he had been negligent in the perform-
ance of his duty. In the course of his remarks he
had not dealt fairly with one individual concerned,
but he (Mr. Herries) was sure that the lion. Mem-
ber had only acted upon mis• information. lie had
treated the Bishop of Lincoln with decided injus-
.tice, when he alluded to him as having singled out
the Rev. Mr. Wray for an act of peculiar harshness
and severity. If the Hon. Member had taken a
little pains to make himself acquainted with facts,
his own candour would have compelled him to re-
frain from attempting to excite an unmerited pre-
judice against that Right Rev. Prelate. He would
then have found how zealously, strenuously, and
perseveringly the Bishop of Lincoln attended to that
ditty, which rendered it necessary for him to act in
this case -as he had done in others. This informa-
tion also might easily have been procured; not only
had that Right Rev. Prelate proceeded with no pe-
col* severityagainst Mr, Wray, but.,he had adopt-
ed every alieviation which the necessary preserva-
tion of Church discipline would allow: 44 cases had
been pointed out to the Bishop, said to be similar
to that of Mr. Wray—persons who did not perform
double duty ; and it turned out, on inquiry, that in
twenty-four out of the forty-four cases the double
duty was constantly performed. The Bishop had
not neglected to investigate minutely all the circum-
stances of the remaining twenty cases, and in eight
of them he had enforced the perforinance of double
duty. In five other cases he had taken measures
that would soon be attended with the same result.
Regarding five others, inquiries were still pending,
and the Bishop was hearing the parties and weighing
the objections, in order that full and fair justice
might be done. In one of the two remaining cases,
the Bishop of Lincoln had not vet obtained a return
which was necessary, but he had seen enough to be
satisfied that he should not in that instance be able
to enforce his decree. As to the last case, the
Bishop had not yet obtained an answer from the
party concerned on which he was able to decide.—
Thus much he (Mr. Herries) could confidently as-
sert, that there was not a single case in which the
Right Rev. Prelate had not done all in his power to
maintain the interests of the Church with as little
injury to and hardship upon individuals as possible.
What were the facts with regard to Mr. Wray ? In
the speech of the Hort. Member, he was represented
as having nothing but a Curacy of 701. a year, when
it was not to be disputed that Mr. Wray had a
living of 4801. a year. The Bishop had done all in
his power to make the enforcement of his direc-
tions as little injurious to Mr. Wray as possible;
he found that he had a son resident in his lamily,
who was capable of discharging the duty in one of the
churches, and he hati been appointed for that pur-
pose. After this statement, was any charge of harsh-