THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER.
(To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sia,—Mr. Chancellor Christie has, perhaps, misapprehended that which he may have been told. But I can assure him that not my statements, but (of course, unintentionally) his own, are "inaccurate and misleading." He says that on "the Bishop's attention being called to the fact that the matter was open to doubt he desired," and obtained, the Chancellor's "opinion thereon ;" and "has never [since] authorised or in any manner, directly or indirectly, sanctioned either pew-rents Or appropriation." For five years the Bishop did sanction pew-rents, though on every fresh consecration we urged the Act's clear prohibition of them. Since then he has " allowed " the pew system, under the delusive name of "Free—but—ap- propriated." At St. Clement's, Broughton, public attention was called to this a year ago by the ex-Mayor of Salford, who was turned out of a pew. in other new churches, it was known
that the intention of the Act was being equally frustrated- Last year, it becoming known that the incumbent, elect of the last new church—St. Clement's, Greenheys—intended appro.- priation, steps were taken to prevent it. Meetings of parishioners were held, and it was resolved by them to uphold the Act. They formed a committee, memorialised the Bishop, and appointed a deputation to see his Lordship, but he would not receive it.
The following resolution was adopted and sent to the Bishop early in May last :—" That the nave of every parish church, until the modern adoption of the 'family-pews' or- 'seat-assignment' ' system, has always been absolutely free in every part, to all comers, rich or poor, first come, first served;" and that St. Clement's Church, expected to be handsomely- endowed out of the funds of the parish of Manchester, on con- dition of its being for ever hereafter free to all, ought not to be' tacitly or expressly, in any way whatever, assigned to or re- served by some parishioners rather than others." Yet, Mr.. Christie says that not "any complaint from any parishioner has reached his Lordship of any renting or illegal appropria- tion," in any such new church. How could a complaint have reached his Lordship in any other or more distinct way ?
There may be some 4guivogue in the Chancellor's expressions, " sanction" and "illegal appropriation." Any appropriation is illegal, because appropriatio unius es t exclusio alterius. My- statement was not that the Bishop had by any act "sanc- tioned," but that he has knowingly " allowed " appropriation.. He has not even asked the incumbent, as he did Mr. Green, not to disobey the law. Qui non vetat peccare, peccat.
I submit, therefore, that I was accurate in saying that the Bishop has "allowed," and does "connive at, an admitted and. defiant. violation of the law," most fatal to the spiritual interest of thousands of his fellow-citizens. What has Chancellor- Christie to say to the other still more important statutory con- dition, likewise violated, that for every endowment granted equivalent pew-rents be given up ; or, for the scales of pew- rents, illegally sanctioned at first by the Bishop, not being since- cancelled, but " allowed " to be still unlawfully enforced P—I am, &c.,
Previous page
