22 APRIL 1882, Page 14



Sia,—As Mr. Herford not only misquotes the words of my former letter to you (making it appear that I wrote a sentence which is neither grammar nor sense), but also contradicts what I then stated, and still state, to be facts, I must trouble you with a brief reply to his last letter. Mr. Herford must know perfectly well that no parish or district has as yet been assigned to St. Clement's, Greenheys, and that there being no parishioners thereof, uo complaint from a parishioner can possibly have reached the Bishop respecting any appropriation or letting of seats therein. The resolution set out in the second paragraph of Mr. Herford's letter was passed and sent to the Bishop even before the consecration of the church, and is a mere expression of an abstract opinion. It was passed at a meeting of a self- constituted committee (formed at Mr. Herford's instance), not even purporting to consist of residents in the district proposed to be assigned to the new church.

St. Clement's was consecrated on June 15th last. Shortly afterwards, certain other resolutions—which Mr. Herford, no doubt for good reasons, does not quote—were sent to the Bishop front the same committee, but purporting to have been passed at a meeting of "parishioners." They were, in fact, passed at a meeting of persons some of whom were residents in tbe dis- trict proposed to be assigned to the church, but others of whom had no connection with the neighbourhood ; but until a parish or district is assigned to St. Clement's, there can be no aggrieved " parishioners " entitled to complain to the Bishop either of the incumbent, or of the way in which the churchwardens perform the duty, placed upon them by the Manchester Parish Division Act, of arranging for the occupation of seats and pews. The "handsome endowment " which the incumbent of St. Clement', at present enjoys amounts to £:37 per annum.

I have no intention of being drawn by Mr. Herford into a discussion as to any of the matters upon which he invites my opinion, nor shall I comment upon the scraps of French and Latin with which his letter is garnished, further than to say that there is nothing "eptivopte" (why Mr. Herford cannot say " equivocal," I don't know) in any of the expressions of my former letter. That letter is a simple statement of facts, written in as clear and unequivocal language as I know how to use. I have nothing to add to that statement, nothing to withdraw, and nothing to explain.—I am, Sir, ac., RICHARD C. CHRISTIE.