said, he rose to submit a motion to which he supposed there would be no objection. He was anxious to obtain a return, of, the number of Non-resident, and of Resident, Archdeacons in the several dioceses, in England and Wales. It was in the knowledge of hon. members, that, during the last half century, various enactments, had been passed with a, view to enforce residence on the part of individuals holding benefices. He was sorry to say, that those laws had, to a very great extent, failed of effect, in regard to persons holding benefices in the church; and he was desirous to know, by means of this motion, how far individuals filling the responsible situations of archdeacons resided, in their respective dioceses for the purpose , of discharging the important duties attached to their office. It was obviously important that archdeacons, should be resident in their dioceses; but he feared that, in many instances, that, would be found not to be the case. And here he would refer the House to a correspondence which had passed between an archdeacon in the diocess of Lincoln, and an unfortunate curate of that dioceses; from which, it appeared, that this, curate was obliged to give up one of his curacies, because it was declared by the right rev. prelate of that dioceses, that it was not competent for him to discharge the duty in two parishes at the same time. He could not help thinking, looking at the returns regarding the residence of the clergy in the dioceses of Lincoln, that it appeared as if an individual had been singled out for the purpose of carrying the law into effect, and that the very proper principle by which the right rev. prelate, professed to be guided in this case was not generally applied to the clergy in that dioceses. It appeared from the last returns that, in the year 1814, there were in England and Wales 10,602 beneficed clergymen: that of these there were only 3,798 constantly resident upon their benefices; and that there were 6,804 non-resident clergymen holding benefices in England and Wales. It further appeared, that of that number 1,990 discharged their parochial duties, though non-resident; and it also appeared, that the number of those, as well resident as non-resident, who discharged their duties, amounted to 5,688; while the number of those who, besides not being resident, did no kind of duty in their parishes, amounted to 4,830, But the returns which were made last year merely regarded clergymen holding benefices. Now he was anxious to obtain similar returns, illustrative of the residence or non-residence of archdeacons, to whom were instructed very important duties in the church of England; above all, he was anxious to know to what extent this principle of residence was adhered to by the archdeacons in the dioceses of Lincoln. As far as regarded the clergymen of that dioceses, it would seem from the returns, that the rev. Mr. Wray was but a solitary individual selected for the enforcement of the principle of residence. The archdeacon himself, who called for the enforcement of that principle in the instance of Mr. Wray, though intrusted with clerical duties in the dioceses of Lincoln, lived at Bexley in Kent. It appeared from the returns, that there were 1,254 beneficed clergymen in the dioceses of Lincoln. The bishop of that dioceses also presided over a college; and as he could not be resident in his dioceses while discharging his collegiate duties, he should have had at least a fellow feeling for Mr. Wray of those 1,254 beneficed clergymen, only 293 were resident. The number of nonresidents by exception, of whom 65 did duty, amounted to 367: of non-residents by license 354; and of non-residents who put in no plea for their absence to 117. It was plain, indeed, from those returns, that the principle of residence required much to be enforced in that dioceses; and if the right rev. prelate was laudably determined to see it adhered to, he should not confine his efforts to a single instance. From the statement of Mr. Wray, it appeared that he received but 60l. a-year from the parish of Bardney in which he resided; the small additional income which he derived from doing duty in the adjoining parish was therefore a great object to him. It further appeared, that he had a family of thirteen children; and though that was not a circumstance to weigh with the House, it was one which should have induced the bishop not to enforce this principle in the instance of Mr. Wray, unless he was determined to carry it strictly into operation. The hon. member concluded with moving for the said return.

said, the hon. member, it seemed, was desirous to show how many archdeacons were resident, and how many were non-resident, but he should have first considered whether it was any part of their duty to be resident. No question, it was the duty of beneficed clergymen to fee resident; but it was not so with archedcons. It was their duty to make visitations at certain periods; and that duty could be performed, whether they were resident or non-resident. Indeed, he conceived it would be better that archdeacons should not be resident in their dioceses; and he objected, therefore, to the very principle upon which this motion was founded. The duty of an archdeacon would, perhaps, be better performed by a stranger to the clergy of the dioceses than by an individual who should be in constant habits of social intercourse with them. He also objected to this motion as far as it regarded the archdeacon to whom the hon. member had more particularly alluded. There was no charge made against that rev. individual, with respect to the performance of his duty: on the contrary, it would appear, from the statement of the hon. member, that he had been, if any thing, rather strict in the discharge of his duty. The hon. gentleman, he must observe, had dealt very hardly, and very unjustly—without, no doubt, meaning to do so—with the right rev. prelate who presided over the dioceses of Lincoln. The hon. member had spoken of the hardship which had been inflicted upon the rev. Mr. Wray; but he was certain, that if the hon. member had obtained sufficient information on the subject, his candor would have induced him not to make any statement to the prejudice of the right rev. prelate to whose jurisdiction the rev. Mr. Wray was subject. The hon. member was not aware of the efforts of that right rev. prelate to enforce the principle of residence in all other cases in his dioceses, as well as in the case of the rev. Mr. Wray. The right rev. prelate had not proceeded, as the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, with any degree of severity towards Mr. Wray; but, on the contrary, with the utmost tenderness. That rev. gentleman complained, it appeared, that there were forty-four other cases in the dioceses of Lincoln similarly circumstanced as he was, and where the clergymen did perform double duty in their parishes. Now, the bishop, so far from neglecting those cases, had, before, and since the period when that principle was enforced in the instance of Mr. Wray, taken proceedings to enforce a similar principle in every other case of the kind throughout his dioceses. It turned out, therefore, that of these forty-four cases, there were twenty-four in which the duty, was now performed. There remained, there fore, but twenty cases in which Mr. Wray could complain, that the duty was not performed, and the principle which had been enforced in his case not carried into effect. Now, with regard to eight of these, the bishop had already enforced the same principle of doing duty; with respect to five, he was taking measures to enforce the same principle; and five more cases were under inquiry at present. He was listening to and answering the objections which were made, with a view to do justice to all parties. With regard to the two remaining cases, in one of them his lordship was not as yet satisfied that it would be just to call for the enforcement of this principle; and as to the other, he had not as yet received a satisfactory answer regarding it. But, in all those cases, he had done his almost to see that the duty was performed. The hon. member had stated that the income which Mr. Wray received from the parish where he did duty was but 70l a year; but it should be borne in mind, that he had an income of 480l. per annum from another quarter; and the hon. member was not probably aware that the bishop, finding that this reverend gentleman had a son living in his family and in the parish, appointed him to do the duty, for the performance of which he did not think the rev. Mr. Wray himself competent. There was no hardship, therefore, inflicted upon Mr. Wray. The conduct of the right reverend prelate was solely influenced, by a desire to have the double duty strictly performed in a very populous parish. He had looked into the documents connected with this subject, and he conceived that the right rev. prelate, in the performance of his duty, had acted very tenderly towards Mr. Wray; whilst he was unremitting in his endeavors to enforce the principle applied in that case in all other cases throughout his dioceses. He trusted that the hon. member would withdraw the motion.

disavowed any intention of casting imputations upon the conduct of the bishop of Lincoln. He contended, that archdeacons should be resident; that an improper representation had been made by the archdeacon in this case; and, that such a circumstance proved the necessity for their residence in their respective diocesses.

bore testimony to the exertions of the bishop of Lincoln to oblige the clergymen in his diocess to perform double duty in their several parishes.

confirmed the statement of the hon. member.

said, that if the returns were granted, the conduct of the bishop of Lincoln would turn out to have been creditable to himself and advantageous to the diocess over which he presided.

Mr. Hume then withdrew the motion.