Star.
London, England, 1829-06-23 00:00:00

the Rev. Mr. Wray for an.act of peculiar harshness and
severity. If the Hon. Member bad taken a little pains
to make himself acquainted with facts, his own candour
would have compelled him to refrain from attempting
to ache an unmerited prejudice against that Right Rev.
Prelate. He would then have found how zealously,
strenuously, and perseveringly the Bishop of Lincoln
attended to that duty, which rendered it necessary for
him to act in this case as he had done in others. This
information also might easily have been procured ; not
only bad that Right Rev. Prelate proceeded with no
peculiar severity against Mr. Wray, but be had adopted
every alleviation which the necessary preservation of
Church discipline would allow ; 44 cases bad 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 24 out of the 44
cases the double duty was constantly 'performed. The
Bishop bad not neglected to investigate minutely all the
circumstances of the remaining 20 cases, and in eight
of them be had enforced the performance of double
duty. In five other cases he had taken measures that
would soon be attended with the same result. Regard-
ing five others inquiries were pending, and the Bishop
was hearing parties and weighing objections, in order
that full and fair justice might be done. In one of the
two remaining cases, the Bishop of Lincoln had not yet
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 assert, 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 Honourable
Member, he was represented as baring nothing but a
Curacy of 701. a year, when it was not to be disputed
that Mr. Wray bad a living of 4801. a year. The Bishop
bad done all in his power to make the enforcement of
his directions as little injurious to Mr.Wray as possible;
he found that he bad a son resident in his family, who
was capable of dischargings.she duty in one of the
Churches, and he bad been appointed for that purpose.
After this statement, was any charge of harshness,much
less of tyranny and persecution, borne out against the
Bishop of Lincoln ? If for the sake of the Church. and
the interests of the public, be bad thought it necessary
to enforce the performance of double duty, belted not
forgotten what humanity required, or neglected to take
into consideration the fact, that the individual in this
particular case had thirteen children. AU who were
acquainted with the Right Rev. Prelate must feel cer-
tain that he was the last man in the world against
whom such an imputation could be justly made. He
(Mr. Hades) bad looked at the documents very re-
cently; he knew that they were correct, and they proved
that the Bishop of Lincoln bad done his duty as ten.
deny as possible. In his charge he had strongly pointed
to the performance of the whole duty, and he was en-
deavouring to enforce this performance in every case
that was brought before him; his endeavours were un-
remitted, but he always took into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of the individuals concerned..—
After what be had said, he trusted that even the Hon.
Member would see the fitness of not pressing his motion.
Mr. HUME did not mean to throw undeserved
blame upon the Bishop of Lincoln, or any other person,
and denied that Mr. Wray, f rom peculiar circumstances,
derived the slightest advantage from the living men.
tioried by the Right Honourable Gentleman. It could
not be disputed that Mr. Wray had been removed on
the report of the Archdeacon, and in consequence of
uon-residence and misinformation, that report turned
out to be incorrect and false. Had the Archdeacon
resided within his district, as was the case with Staff
Officers of the army, he would have been better in-
formed. According to the argument of the Right Hoo.
Gentleman, an Archdeacon might as well live in
France or America as in England, provided twice in
the year, for three days, he visited the diocese. The
Archdeacon was called (he did not like to quote the Latin
words)" the eye and the heart" of the Bishop, and he was
to send information to his diocesan regarding the charac-
ter and conduct of the Clergy, and the state of the
churches and buildings connected with them : how could
he discharge this duty properly, if he only came out of
Kent for a few days in each half year? The Bishop
could not superintend the whole diocese. and Archdea-
cons were appointed to Assist him. He thought it
necessary that the House should be able to ascertain
the actual state of their public duty. This was the more
requisite when they saw one case picked out from so
many, owing to the false representations of the Arch.
deacon; which or;ginated from non-residence. For these
reasons, he must request the Right Hon. Gentleman to
consent to the production of the Returns. •
Mr. TRA NT thought that the Hon'. Gentleman had not acted
quite fairly in making an attack upon the Right Reverend Prelate
when his information on the subject appeared to be so uncertain.
Mr. CHOLMELEY bore testimony to the great satisfaction
which the Right Reverend Prelate had given in the course of his
conduct in his diocese.

Mr. TENNYSON confirmed the statement of the last Moo.
Member, and recommended the Honourable Memberto withdraw
his motion.
Mr. PALMER was sure that if the Returns were granted they
could not do any thing but reflect the greatest honour on the Right
Reverend Prelate.
Mr. HUME then consented to withdraw his motion.
Ms. OTW AY CAVE moved that there be laid before the
Howse an Account of the Income of the Corporation of the Bo-
rough of Leicester since the year 1810. together with an Account
Int the manlier in which the same had been disposed of.
Mr. HERMES objected to the motion, on the ground that the
parties interested not bairn been made acquainted with the
thin of the Honourable Member to move tor the papenin question,
it would not be fair to acquiesce in a motion which would Deers•
sarily convey an imßutation which it would not be possible to re-
move until next Session.

Mr. ()TWAY CAVE consequently consented to withdraw his
motion.
Mr. H. GURNEY said, that, in the course of last
Session of Parliament, he bad given notice of his mitten.
tion, in the course of the present, to bring the subject
of the application of corporate funds befo►e the House.
Various circumstances had, however, miser' to prevent
ltis pressing the matter. He hoped that the ba►iness
would be taken up by parties more competent to giving
effect to his intention in the nest Session of Parliament;
but, should he be disappointed in that expectation, he
now gave notice that he would himself move for leave
to introduce a Bill to effect his object.
. The Orders of the Day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock.

STATE PAPER.
PROTOCOL Of Tile CONTRRIINCR 1111.11 IN LONDON AT
Till OFfICR OF PORRIGN AffAIRS, ON THE 22D OP
MARCHs 1329.

Present, the Pienipotentiaries of Great Britain,France,
and Russia.

Immediately after their arrival, the Plenipotentiaries
of France and England will open with the Government
of the Ottoman Porte, and in the sun of the three
Allied Courts, a negociation fiunded• on the treaty of
the 6th of July, 1827, respecting the pacification and
ifutnee organization of Gieece. It is well understood