DR. GREY AND FITS PARISHIONERS.
TO TER EDITOR 01, TILE SPECTATOR.
9, Devonshire Square, 6th September 1931.
Sin—Your notice of the Vestry-meeting of the parishioners of St. Bo. tolph, Bishopsgate, touching the dispute between them and their Rector, though brief, contains as foul a libel and as false a statement as the space it occupies would admit of. It charges Dr. Gaey with an act of rapacity, -which, if true, would justly subject him to the obloquy and scorn of the best friends of the Established Church. It accuses him of having denied all participation in the agreement entered into between his parishioners and his predecessor and diocesan the Bishop of LONDON, by which it was stipulated that 300/., part of the sum of 2,500/. given to the Rector in lieu of tithes, should go to pay the stipend of the clergyman who officiates in the new Church built by • the Commissioners, and on insisting on the 2,500L without deduction. Had you stopped even here, one might have • concluded you had been misled by a hasty perusal of the introductory statements to the report of the proceedings in the three Morning Papers of Saturday last, which are doubtless calculated to mislead, and which, to my knowledge, have misled sevetal of the neighbouring clergy, as well as other staunehtfriends of the Church of England ; but that excuse can. not he conceded to you—inasmuch as your subsequent paragraphs make it manifest that• you have travelled to the end of the report : you intro- .duce a host of witnesses on the part of the accusers, and repeat the ab- surd stuff broached at the meeting by Mr. \Armee, respecting an appeal to the Lord CHANCELT,OR. Your excellent understanding will, I hope, on reconsideration, admit that its powers were in a state of weariness at the • :moment, and were then induced to conceive the Possibility of an appeal to a Court of Equity on the grievance spoken of. I am willing to believe that Seeur intent lacked malice ; Still you have inflicted a wound, unwit- tingly perhaps, but not the less deep, which no refutation can perfectly heal, because the bane is too widely disseminated to admit of an adequate antidote. On the part of the Dean of HEREFORD, who is now absent from town, I rely on your sense of justice to repair, as far as you are able, the injury which that very xeverend gentleman has received at your hands ; and with this confident assurance I submit the following statement for insertion in your columns, for the truth of which lam Prepared to vouch. You are perhaps aware that the present Rector succeeded Dr. BLom- Tim) in this livinc, immediately after the latter's translation from Ches- ter to London ; and that the Duke of WELLINGTON, the then Premier, was understood to have recommended Dr. GREY to the Crown. On that occasion, the local Act of Parliament, 6 Geo. IV. (1826) for extin&uishing tithes and for making compensation to the Rector in lieu thereof, an annual sum of 2,500/. fret of all deductions, parochial and parliamentary, as the Rector's stipend ; subject to a proviso, that in case an additional church should thereafter be erected in the parish, the annual sum of 300/., part of the sum of 2,500/. should be appropriated as a provision for the minister of suchchurch. At the presentation of the rectory, the Duke of WELLINGTON would no doubt cause a copy of this act to be delivered to Dr. GREY; who, at :his institution, found that the new church was in the course of erection, the first stone having been laid but a few months previously. Some time after the consecration, in 1830, a Vestry was held for various purposes; when the alleged agreement between the Bishop of Losnost and the parishioners was incidentally mentioned, and a hint thrown out that Dr. GREY would be held responsible for the sum that had accrued due on the 300/. which his Lordship had (as it was said) sti- pulated to set apart for the expenses of the church. I then took the liberty of showing the unreasonableness of calling upon the present to perform the contract (if substantiated) of a former Rector, unless at the presentation of the living the engagement had been pointed out to him. Being honoured by the Rector's acquaintance, I took occasion shortly afterwards to mention what' had passed ; when he expressed his surprise, and added that that Was thefirst intimation he had received on the sub- ject. It is material to notice, that, at this period, Dr. GREY had held the trectorytwo years, and yet no notice had been given him of the supposed contract. Atthe lase.Daster Vestry, the Rector presided, and had ta e recluse the mortification of witnessing votes ofgrittuities.to the Vestry Clerk, the parish Beadles, and others hugusgeneris, and the rejection of a motion for a presentof 101. eaali to his two Curates for voluntarily performing ser- vice (including a sermon) every Sunday at the Workhouse, a Sinn which had been annually amide-cite the Curates Of at haft three preceding Rec- tors. The Vestry was composed (andto the disgrace of the members of the Established Church, it is usually so composed) two-thirds of Dissenters ; who.carryeverfthing before them in this parish; owing to the supine In- difference of the Church people. In addition to the before-enumerated
• annoyances, twoDissenting Churchwardens' were.elected in spite of the Rector's earnest solicitation to be obliged with one Churchman; and inde- licate observations were made to him in reference to the amount of his • stipend. The 'Rector is proverbially mild and conciliating in his bearing
towards his parishioners ; but, hurt by the behaviour of the'VeStry on - -that occasion, he intimated, that whatever course he mightliave intended 'to adopt-with regard' to 'the 300/., 'his 'Mind weather' relieved--he would -no longer 'hesitate-to declare that -they should •not have one shilling. • • Neither before that Veatry, 'nor •since, to' my knowledee„ has -any request been raade to him to,ancount for or:refund any part a the sum in die- s) ,pute. It is admitted,'orcall hands, thatthere iscolsgal.claim .even.uon Abe-Biebop, kss upen,Dr. GREY ; and Messrs. I'matimendWitirE ;will-have some cliffroulty-in-estahlishin,Trany other,.be it inh,onoutor In, • ,equity,;.butuntilachargeof sorherlescriptionds rnadeont upon thaBisbop, it 'would be.premattzreto,slentand. what they Are pleased , to .designate the • Reetor's ("Rhin. Tbe soleissue is, wbetherthere was an Understood agree.: ,-Tneritto czt)160 stated by IVIr.Witrix. The pariebionerstharge tlieStahOp *itli itt§ilYrziheitysurreUtlefedtlic 3y frottith epressingdftheletto' the
opening of the new.church. He denies any understanding to that extent, but admits that he voluntarily engaged to furnish and adorn the new church for consecration, the disbursements for which may, at a round sum, be stated at 650/. Those disbursements have been discharged at the cost of his Lordship. Many parishioners are ready to come forward and declare that the engagement was made in their hearing. The Bishop re- plies that these parishioners may have been present and heard, but that they have not heard aright ; that they have forgotten or misunderstood what he really did say. The question, therefore, is resolved into a ques- tion of probabilities; which must be left to the decision of the public, since the mooters of the subject have thought proper to appeal to that tribunal.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
TEIOMAS RODGERS.
[Besides the above communication, we have received one on the other side, which, as it is anonymous, we cannot place in opposition to Mr. RODGERS'S. We have committed a mistake in that part of our short pa- ragraph which describes the subject of contention : it appears to be cor- rectly described by our correspondent. The points in dispute, as we now understand the case, are—lst, whether Dr. BLOI■IFIELD promised, until the new church was built, to apply the annual sum.of 300/., which the Act of Parliament allotted to the Minister out of his income when the church teas built, to furnishing that church, and other purposes connected with it ? and 2nd, whether Dr. GREY participated in such pledge ? Legally, the Bishop was not bound. Legally, Dr. GREY is not bound, unless it was made part of the terms of his appointment. In ho- nour, Dr. BLOMFIELD was bound to the extent of his promise. It seems doubtful what was its extent : at least the Bishop disputes the reading of the parishioners. Dr. GREY certainly is not bound in honour. He never promised; and indeed the conduct of the pa- rishioners to him very early induced him to state that he would not con- tribute the fund of 3001. And we are further confirmed in the opinion that he is not bound in honour, as the promise of Dr. BLOMFIELD was, in point of fact, (so our anonymous correspondent informs . us,) extorted from him by the pressure of an opinion that he contributed to the delay in the building of the church in order that he might retain the full amount of the salary which the law had given him in the mean time. Dr. BLOMFIELD gave the money that he might not be exposed to the im- putation : it was clearly not a compact intended by either party to apply to his successor ; and Dr. BLOMFIELD could not in any way bind his suc- cessor
Previous page
