Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

I THE DIOCESE OP NEWCASTLE.
TO TBE EDITOR OF THE EMPMB. I
Sin-I need only refer to the review or . parapbli
entitled " Tile Unpopularity of Modern Episcopacy
occupying two columns of your paper of the 85th instan
to elaim, from your sense of justice, the insertion of tl
following remarks in refutation of tba charges mad
against me in that review.
Tho strictures of the roviewor have reference-]
to tho ßonoral position of the clergy of tho Church (
England in this colony ; IT., to tho ciroumstancos coi
nccted with tho lato resignation of tho euro of Morpotl
by tho Rev. J. R. Blomfiold; and III., to tho exprosaior.
used by mo rospooting that clergyman in my publishe
letters.
I. The olorgy in this colony aro described by tb
reviewer as being " throttlod and gnggodj" by raen wb
. not only had ontiro oontrol over their stipends, but whi
by moroilessly driving thom from living to living, as suite
their own ooprioe, harassed them into Bubmission."
1. Tho Bishops ore hero ussertod to have entire cor
trot over the stipends of the clergy. The statemont is a
error.. The Bishops have no control whatever over th
stipends of tho clergy. Tho clorgymon, who recoiv
Government stipends, had the amour
of , their stipends* settlod at first accordin
to Govornmont regulations, and these stipend
aro poid from the Treasury without any refer
onoe to the bishop. And when a proposition was 'latol
laid before mo by the Government to pay the stipond
of the olorgy, through soma ofiicor appointed by mysoli
I expressed my opinion that tho proposed arrangemen
should not bo carried out, becauso it seemed to me t
ronder the payment of tho Btipends of the olorgy les
scoure.
In tho case of the olorgy who, roceiving no pnymen
from Government, derive their incomes from th
contributions of tho laity-instead of having any con
trol over those incomes, I incur eaoh year, for the com
fort and security of tho clergy, a very hoavy persona
responsibility, by guaranteeing to each of thom a cortaii
stipond, instead of allowing them to be personall
dependent on the contributions of their own Hook. Th
amount, for which I thus mado myself responsible las
year exceeded two thousand pounds, while ' tho sun
oollected in any district above tho Btipond guarantee*
by me is not un dor my oontrol, but at the disposal o
the laity of tho district, forming tho distriot committee
to present to their clergymen, or to apply to any othe
Church purpose as they may please.
3.- The bishops aro stated by the reviewer " to havi
the power of mercilessly driving tlie clergy from tivin<
to living, as may suit thoir own caprice." This again ii
an error. Tho olorgy of the diocese dearly understand
that they are permanently Axed in thoir oures
that I . do not claim - the slightest power o
removing them unless they have been pre
viously convicted of sorao grave offence by their brothel
olergymen, acting under a commission issued by rae
that, if I propose to any of thom to change thoir euro, il
is left to their own freô ohoico whether they will accede
; to tho proposal or not. Tho case of a young deaoon
being appointed for six months to a cure, unexpectedly
vacant, as occurred lately at Raymond Terrace, with the
' period of his six months' sorvioo specified on his license,
is no. exception to this rule-snob a temporary appoint-
ment only showing my anxiety not to leavo the. vacant
ouro without the ministrations of religion until a perma-
nent appointment could be mado.
Tosecure, however, a groat good for tho whole dio
cose, ono exception, and only one, has been made to this
goneral rulo of all euros being permanent. In ordei
that young deacons might not be sont out to the newly
formed distant districts, whore they could have no
superintendence from mysolf, and scarcely any inter-
course with their clerical brethren (for often, in those
oxtonsivo districts, the clergy of adjoining cures do not
soo each other for years) ; what Ï first came to this
diocese, I formed Morpeth, tho placo of my own rosi
donce, into a now Church district, as a temporary eure.
By this arrangement newly ordained clergymen would
commence thoir ministry, and learn their duties, under
my own eye, and then be permanently appointed to
other districts, leaving the cure of Morpeth disengaged
for other newly ordained deacons to ocoupy in their
turn.
With this one exception of the euro of Morpeth, every
clorgymon of this dioceso is the permanont incumbent
of his parish, and I do not pretend to have tho slightest
power or authority to removo any one of them from liv-
ing to living, oxoopt with his own free consent.
II. I now proceod to tho assertions of the reviewer
respecting the lato resignation of the cure of Morpeth
by Mr. Blomfiold.
A full account of tho oxaat position of Mr. Blomfiold
at Morpeth, and of all the ciroumstancos connooted
with bia resignation has boen given in the last of my
letters published in the Maitland Mercury. To that let
' ter I refer all who wish to understand tho real facts of
this painful case. Tho assertions of Mr. B. are there
proved to be orroncous, not morely by ray oounter-assor
tions, but by tho written documents which I produce.
Nothing has been concealed. My letters contain all tho
doouments connected with tho case.
I feel it is quito sufficient to rofer to those letters, in-
stead of entering again at groat length on tho subject,
becauso tho effect produced by them has been all I could
I wish. Three expressions in them hnve been commented
upon as hoing unduly severo (a subject to be presently
considered), but tho facts contained in thoso letters, con-
firmed as tboy aro by written dooumonts, liavo entirely
changed tho feeling of angry indignation against their
Bishop, industriously instilled by Mr. B. into the minds
of his late Hook, to even a stronger fading against Mr.
B. himself, to whoso misrepresentation they had givon
such implicit credence.
What can prove this alterod state of feeling moro
clearly than tho attendanco and proceedings at tho last
meeting of the parishioners of Morpeth ? It was called
by Mr. Close, that (as ho stated in bis written spooch;
" tho affair might not clono without sufficient publioity,
lost they should bo supposed to be ashamod of what they
lind done." It was thus intended to bo an imposing
conclusion of tho agitation. It was convened by adver-
tisement, signed by Mr. Closo-persons were canvassed
to attend it-and, whon it mot, it was attendod, as I am
informed, by eight persons, Mr. Close, and his Bin, and
six others. Ono resolution only was passed at the meet-
ing, proposod by a Presbyterian, and seconded by a
poison who had less right than even a Presbyterian to
toko part in any proceedings connected with tho ohuroh.
Of this ono resolution, the final elauso, takon from Mr.
Blomfleld's lotters, any person by referring to the report
of the Newcastle Churoh Sooioty for 1850, might have
seen to be manifestly untrue. And, after tho passing of
this one untruthful resolution, thero was an altercation
as to whether Mr. B.'s letters should bo plaoed in tho
hands of the roporters-Mr. Close having stated to mo
in writing ; " these lotters of Mr. B. wero dircoted by
tho meeting, contrary to ray expressed wish and objec-
tions of my son, to be givon to the reporters." Truly
there was good cause for tho mortification which Mr.
Close (who from his position at Morpeth, and from his
own personal oharaotor, is so highly respected, but who,
to tho regrot of all bis friends, had beon persuaded to
uso tho whole influence of his position and oharaotor nnd
sympathy on the sida of his godson, Mr. Blomfiold) there
was truly, I say, good cause for the mortification
which Mr. Close felt at this meeting, and expressed
thuB, as reported in tho Northern Times, " He could
soarcely understand tho apathy wbioh was manifested
by tho publia with référença to the objoot of tho present
meoting. .lt scorned as if it wero to them an objeot of
perfect indifference."
Thus hos tho agitation como to a closo at Morpotl) ;
and before I quit this subject I dosiro to repoat what
I havo written beforo, that if any of tho members of tho
Church at Morpeth fool that thoy have done mo wrong
in allowing thoir kind toolings to bo unduly worked
upon, to entertain unfounded charges against me, tho
only amonds I dosiro is tho renewal of their regard and
esteem, with tho nsaurnnoe on my part that nil which
has taken place is already forgiven and forgotten.
I turn now to tho roviower's assertions respecting
tho resignation of Mr. B. Those assortions are con-
densed into a narrativo, whioh, for misroprosentation
and suppression of tho truth, has novor boon surpassed.
(I.) Tho first sontonca is ns follows:-"No sooner
has tho young clergyman won tho ostuom and good-will
of his pooplo than ho is told, it ÍB a roora temporary
appointment, ito."
To this I roply-instead of Mr. Blomfleld having
laboured far somo time in tho cure of Morpotl), and
having thon boon informed after a longth of sorvioo that
his appointment was morely tomporary-Mr. Blomfiold
snys in his own statement-" In giving my lioonso into
my hands, his lordship said 'you aro to understand
this is a tomporary appointment.' As I had boon but
reoontly ordainod, I felt that this was not unreasonable."
Thus, from tho first, it was cloarly understood by Mr,
B., and oonsidorod rensonablo by him, that his appoint-
ment was temporary. '
(2.) Tho second sontonco is, " docs tho congregation
wish him (their clergyman) to romain nnd respectfully
addross his lordship on tho subjoot, tlion thoy rocelvo
a Jesuitical roply, refusing to accedo to thoir wishes, nnd
endeavouring to moko out that tho inoumbont has, of
his own froo choioo, rosignod his ouro."
To this I roply, tho congregation of Morpoth have
never addressed mo on tho nubjeat of Mr. lilomflold's
remaining in tho parish, I thcreforo could not send
them A Jesuitical reply, or rcfuso to accedo to thoir
wishes.
Thus I might go through this wholo mass of stale
untruths ; but ns they havo boen already fully exposed
in my printed lottorB, I will not porform the wearisome
task «gain, bat say « few wo/da respecting-some ,
errors in tbe explanatory statement of your ec
pondent, prefixed to his report of the last Mo:
meeting.
The question of oppression will often entirely de
upon tho time at which tho supposed oppressive (
is first made, Thu«, referring to tho ilrst sent
quoted nbovo from the rovlow-I should consider
uct of grout oppression to appoint tiny clergyman
cure, and thon, after soino length of service, insist
it must ho considerad a temporary euro, ThiB wou
real oppression, hut this, by Mr. B.'s owneon/ee
was not tho case with him at Morpeth.
In this reBpect, your correspondent may mis
because ho does not- state when Mr. B. MOB
required to co-oporato with mo in my plans
the good of tho Church. By taking candidates for or
to reside in tho parsonago-if in July, 1850, wbon it
desirablejto reduce to writing tho conditions on whio
was to remain incumbent of Morpeth, OB a permu
cure, any ncio mode of co-operating with mo in my chi
plans had boon insisted on, thiB would have beon an
prossivo domnnd-but tho first incumbent of Mor
had received candidatos or young deacons into the
sonnpe-Mr. Ii. himself had enjoyod tho boneflt
residing thero with him. During tho whole time
tho scoond Incumbent was at Morpeth, Air. B. rosi
with bim, and when Mr. B. was first put into posses:
of £ho parsonage, a young deacon resided with 1
as another did afterwards ; so that this mode of
operating with mo in my. church plans was.no fresh
mand mado upon Mr. 13., for tho first timo, after he
been some long period in tho cure of Morpoth. But,
tho very first day ho took possession of the parson
ho recoivod a young deacon to resido with him. . : <
Again, your correspondent soys-" Those impn
monts (at the Morpoth parsonage). were valued by
Whinfield, the arbiter chosen by Mr. B., to be worth
£1)0, whereas Mr. B. had valued them ot ¿IBO. 'The
Bishop agreed to the award, but coupled it with the con-
dition that the sum paid for improvements at Morpeth
should be. expended on the parsonage at Raymond
Terrace" From this statement, it might be supposed
that, after the award was made, I agreed to it only on the
conditions, then insisted upon for the first time, that
money was to be expended at Raymond Terrace, whereas
the truth is, this condition was dearly stated by me, and
assented to by Mr. B. before Mr. Whinfield consented
at his friend's request, to act as arbiter.
The important bearing of these points on tho quesl
whether I have been guilty of oppression and injust
will be obvious to all. .
I return to tho roviewor, nnd would , notice his.
pressions of condemnation. The following form a sn
portion of tho ohoico collection, prelatical domination
I rankness of spiritual pride-language unworthy oj
gentleman-quibbling arguments, as flimsy as tliey are ft
-¿miserable sophistries-jeruitical ' letters. 'Those n
terms aro contained in ono short paragraph. 'J
reviewer asks-" Does the Bishop of Newcastle fai
.there aro no gentlemen in the country, who can
mask bis miserable sophistries, and show up bis charac
in its true colours ?" I reply, there are snob gentlemi
and' I will appeal to them-to two whose uni
testimony must indeed have weight,-for their positioi
tho highest in this part of the oolony-they are tho 1
and the prçjsent wardens ' of the Maitland and Morp
districts. ... . . , . ' .'
. Mr. Close.'.thb chairman of tho two church' meetii
at Morpeth, oonvened by him in support of Mr. Bk
field, and in hostility'to myself, read at tho seoond
those meetings from a prepared address, .the follow:
I sentences:- . . ; . . ; y.<
" His lordship (tho Bishop of'Newcastle,) every c
I must admit, in thiB transaction, as woll as-in,all ot!
affairs of the ohurob.has done everything ho > could '
the good of the diocese, as well as to distribute the fur
I intrusted to bis management by the members of .i
church with caution. The lay members (of tho chun
. are thankful to his lordship for his never ceasing ex
tions, and are in receipt, through his management, of
essential benefit, in the proper training of any minis
that may ba sent to them, &o."v
Mr. Knox Child will pardon, I trust, ray publishing
self-defence, the following paragraph from'a privi
letter:- .
" I have read with the greatest pain tho long artic
in the Mercury-yet painful as they have beon to me
have also road them with muoh satisfaction, for th
most fully acquit your lordship, in my mind, of tl
least unkindness; and provo how liberal 'and genaro
every part of your oonduot has been to Mr. Blom fiel
and how.anxious you have been to promote the welfe
of the ohuroh."
III. I would now consider the-last subjoot to whi
the strictures of the reviewer have reference-the alleg
undue severity of throe expressions which I have au
concerning Mr. Bloomfield.
I. Tbe first of these' expressions is this, '.:
(Mr. B.) is naturally of very.. limited intelleot, and t
mind, such as it is, has not been rendered, olear ai
accurate by education."
This sentence occurs in my first letter, and was irani
diatoly notiood as unduly severe. Indeed, a. viole
lotter, condemning the severity of this expressio
appeared in the Maitland Mercury, immediately tho fit
letter was published. Many follow where one loads,
and many, therefore, at first joined. in this consul
Others said at the time, and almost all say now, " tl
writer had better have waitod to seo the other letter!
If that first lotter had been the whole of my reply-if
had had notbing mora before me whioh I felt it my du
to publish in solf-defonco, then I eau perceive no sue
necessity for publishing my unfavourable opinion of M
B.'s intellect as could malto that publication consistoi
with Christian charity. But that first letter was not c
I felt compolled to publish. At the close of it
announced that I had numerous misrepresentations <
Mr. B. still to consider-an odious tosh-apainful dut
still to perform, in preparing n furthor statement, and
asked my readers to pause in their judgment until thi
read my othor letters.
I can sincerely say that I called attention to Mr. B.
over-sensttivo disposition, and weak inoaourate mind, I
save him from a moro serious imputation upon h
character. Every right-minded person will considt
weakness of natural powers less degrading than mon
depravity-much leBS degrading than tho proved. wai
of that peculiar moral virtue whioh is tho espocii
excellence of the person's calling. The soldier's mot
ospooial exoollenoo ia courage, his deepest disgrace :
cowardice-the merohant's special excellence is integrit
-the Christian, minister's special excellence is truthfu
ness. If duty compels a genoral to publish "an accour.
of n disastrous action, in which an inferior officer ha
beon engoged, if, aftor due consideration, ho felt that h
must nttributo tho disaster to eithor the cowardice or tb
confused .intellect of. tho officer-if the inferior, office
had tried to throw all the blame . upon. . hi
superior, and tho genoral was thus . obligee
fra Ms own defence, to show how tho disaster di
arise, and sincerely believed that tho officer had ,
confused Intelleot, but'was not a coward-would he uc
uncharitably in mentioning tho officer's .weak and inst
ourato mind, to save him from the oharge of cowardice
Air. B., in writing to a brother olergyman, has justifie
his making tho statement which he road, at tho fire
Morpeth mooting, by saying that ono of hiB late parish
loners oonsidered that- my previous roply to ,Mi
Closo's lotter left him (Mr. B.) under tho imputation c
being " a liar and a swindler.") Lot any person rea
that lettor, and, if suoh a conclusion oan bo drawn fror
it, would not my fourth lettor have led, in an hundred
fold greator degree, to tho same oonolusion ? Indeed,
fully believe that tho publio would havo drawn that eon
elusion from Mr. B.'s misrepresentations, had not J
boforo publishing my fourth lott'or, prepared thom b
tho first lotter, to attribute any amount of misrepreienta
lion on Mr. B.'s part, not to untruthfulness, but to <
weak inaccurate mind.
I repeat that, in mentioning tho natural defeots c
Mr. B.'s mind, and that his oducation bad not been sui
fiaient to correct them, I desired, not only to provo tba
his charges of oppression and injustice against mysol
wero utterly untrue, but ntso to save him from what, ii
my opinion, would have boon infinitely moro distrossin
and degrading to him. I do not bolievo that Mr. h
would wilfully misrepresent anything, but tho inacourao;
of his own statements, and tho erroneous moaning whiol
ho puta upon tho statements of others, aro marvellous
and would lead many to that conclusion, so degrading t
bim, that ho did wilfully misrepresent.
A brother olergyman of Mr. B., nftor roooiving fron
him a reply to a lettor which ho had addressed to hin
respecting his lato aonduct, thus writos to mo of Mr. B.
-" Ho so oomplotely misunderstands tho gist of som
of tho vary plain things I said in my letter, tbnt, evei
without tho evidonco which your lordship has adduced
ono might wall boliova him to havo on ti roly miaumler
stood tho words usod in conversation, in whioh ho is si
positive your lordship permanently settled him in hi
oure."
3. Tho second expressions usod by mo wbioh aro oon
sidorod unduly severo oro ttiuse, " I must add that Mr
1). wan tho only ono of tho olorgy in whom I could plací
on oonfidonco with respect to tho claims whio]
" ho might mako for monoy. Somo months before hi
had made a most oovetoiiB and grasping demand foi
Ü100 of Churoh monoy."
Evory word of this censure is mott richly dcierveâ
and as this covetous domand has roforonoe to thi
pnsvngo quoted in your correspondent's roport of thc
Morpoth mooting, from Mr. Blomflold's lotter-I
paRsago whioh is said to-hávo produced a considerable
sensation at the meeting, (of oight porsons,) nnd thtii
doubtloss lod to tho untruthful portion of tho sole
resolution wbleh wai paned by those eight persons
will explain the transaction at length.
By the Church Act, some clorgymon reçoive from tl
Government grant, £300 as stipond, some £160, son
A'100, and about half tho clorgy of this diocese recoil
nothing from, tho Government. I havo laboured ni
ooiisinuly to rontify this inequitable distribution i
public money, by tho;following plan'whioh I have boc
for tho last six years oarrying out. 1 dosiro that ovary or
of tho clergy should haye, if possible an inoomo ol' £301
and doem it right that tho burdon of providing that
inoreasod incomes should fnll equitably on all tho men
bora of the Church. Tho laity uontributo in, nn
through, thoir own districts ; and I tlioroforo asl: ooo
"district in tho diocoso to contribute annually tho sara
sum, £300, to the Church fund.
Thoso contributions aro thus appropriated. If th
clorgy man. of tho. .district, has a Government stipond«
£200,, then tho ,/7r«« ,.£l,QO.ooUeotod.in the district goc
to the support of clergy in tho'destitute districts,'will
out any Government stipend; and the' second,£1Q0"c
as mnoh us is collected'; above £100, is given, to i th
clergyman i of thó { district, to raise ^his Govornmgrj
stipend of £300 to "300. ' If tho clergyman,has £16
from Government, thon tho first £50 goos to tho doat
tute districts, and the other £100 raises the clergyman1
atipendifrom £100 to £300. If the olorgyman has £10
.from. I Government, than ho receives tho-whol
of. the £300 collected in his distriot, to rais
h¡B £100 to £300., And in tho new distriott
the £300 oolleoted for - the clergyman 1 i
Inoreasod by £100 from the contributions of the old dis
triots whioh have'Govornment stipends ; that the alergy
man may have the same amount of income, £300, ead
year.. > '?'? . .' . ' ' '.'?. '
? From this general statement, I now come''to* Mt
Blom field's particular case.
In 1604, Mr. Blomfleld, as olorgyman of Morpeth, ro
oelved £100 as Government stipend, and £300 fron
other sources, making together tho highest income o
£300. He bad also an oxoollent parsonage. Man;
clorgymon, in other districts, though of older standing
had not so much. Tho olorgyman of Wollombi had tba
year only £300, and hod to pay rent out: of that sum
: having no parsonage. ' ' ? ¡
? In July, 1805, 1 was ablo to appropriate to Morpeth i
Becond JCIOO of Government stipond, and made good m;
claim to this additional £100 from tho commencement o
1851. This back stipend was paid out of the Chard
Balance for the year, and my sole objeot in olaiming i
was to obtain £100 for tba general goad of this diooeso
If the £100 had not boon claimed by mo, it would'him
romainod part of tho Churth Balance for tho year, am
tho Sydney diocese would have had two-thirds of it, nm
the Nowoastlo diooeso ono-third. But, by establishing i
elaim to it, as back stipend, I obtained tho whole £10(
for this diocese. Thus, in July, 1850; Mr. Blomflolc
had reoeived for 1800, from mc, £100 from tho contri
butions of tho parishioners of Morpoth ; also £100, th<
hnlf-year's portion of tho Government stipond, now raisec
to £300, and tho £100 back stipend for 1854. He hat
thus received £300, and was yet to receive the secont
£100 of his Government stipend,- from July to Dacein
ber. 1850.
What then was to be done with tho £100. of bade sti
pend of 1801 ? Was Mr. Blomfleld to keepit, when hi
had already received £300 for 1853? Certainly not. If h<
did ho would have received £400 for 1854, »Ith parson
age, whilo other olergymon of older standing hat
reoeived only 43350, without any house provided fo:
them. This would have been manifest injustice, and' 1
did net suppose such a thought could .have, been enter
tainod by Mr. Blomfleld. Had I conceived ho woulc
demand this £100 for himself, rather than bo n'party ti
such injiistioo, I should have declinad to olaim it, nm
thus haye reoeived only opo-tbird of, it .in' tho Churcl
balance of year, for the general use of tho diocese.
I. therefore asked. Mr. Blomfleld to pay this £100 o
baok stipend to my account, that it might bo appropriate!
for the permanent good of the Church, ns endowment a
Morpeth. He did pay £100 to my account as I desirod
and I considered the whole matter settlod.
In May, 1856, when tho Churoh Society's accounts foi
-1850 were finally made up, it was found that, thc
Morpeth oolleotion, for the Clorgy Fund,fer I860, wasonhj
£188. Therefore, exolnsive of the £100 of back stipenc
Mr. B. had beon overpaid," and £13 might havo beer
required from him. But he was never asked to repay
it. Great, however, was my surprise whee
. Mr. B. then demanded tho additional payment of £88
for himsolf. Ho had already reooived £300, and yet he
demanded this £86. I informed hint that ho had al.
roady beon paid £13 more than his. due, and that he
could not claim anymore. He then declared that he
had not paid back tho £100 of baok stipend, but the
£100 received from me in 1800 from tho Morpeth con-
tributions-that he would keep tho £100 of back, stipend,
It was his, and no one should take it from him. With
this demand I did not comply.
I did not arguo the point with him, thinking be would
be moro easily convinced by seeing how a brother clergy-
man, whom he highly esteemed, would act under exactly
similar.circumstances. Just at that time (May, I860.) I
had appropriated a Government stipend of £100 to Wol-
lombi, and could claim half a year's baok stipend for
1800-i.e. £70. I thereforo wrote to tho Rev. J. F. R.
Whinfield, and asked him if I could obtain £70 of back
stipend for 1850, whether he would wish to appropriate
it to himsolf. Mr. Whinfield had only received for 1801
£350, paying his rent out of it, and for 1800 £260, with
his rent paid ; while Mr. B., who is Mr. Whinfield's
junior, had received for each of these years £300, with
parsonage, exclusive of this £100 of back stipend. Tho
answer of Mr. Whinfield was as follows -.
" Wollombi, May 6,1850.
" Tho question your lordship propoBOS, whother in
caso £75 were appropriated to this distriot for the last
half-year of 1800, I should feel called upon to return
£76 for the uso of the Churoh, I feel no difficulty what,
over in answering. I consider that I have been paid for
tho last year nil that I had any reason to expect from
your lordship ; and that I should not havo been paid so
much by £70, had tbore boen that amount of. Govern-
ment allowance ; and; therefore, should by no means
take advantage of money paid to me, as it were, in
ignoranoo of any. other aid. I sholl be very glad
indeed to send tho vouchers, and so add £75 more to
tho revenues of tho Church."
What a contrast I I plaood this lotter in Mr. B.'s
hands ; ho read it, and I heard no rhore of his oovotou«
demand. I trnly beliovo ho is tho only clergyman of the
diooeso who.would ever have thought of ranking it.
Thus the £100 of baok stipend for 1864 hoing part ol
a Government grant, and not in any way oonneoted with
tho Churoh Society, was appropriated by me for the
endowment of Morpeth school, as stated in my dlocoson
accounts, p. 00 of the Report for 1855 ; and the contri-
butions of the Morpeth distriot for that year, £18813s. Od.,
appear in the Hooiety's acoounts, p. 30, and wero appro-
priated in striot ncoordonoo .with the regulations of the
diocese bot troon their own olorgyman, Mr. B., and tho
destitute districts ; only, Mr. B. received £100, instead
of £88 12j. Cd., i.e., £11 7j. 7d. moro than by right he
? ought to have received.
: 3. Tho third and last charge of unduo severity in my
expressions rospooting Mr. B; is thus statod by tho
1 reviower:-" In another plnoe, ho (the Bishop) insinu-
ated that Mr. B.'s covetous groody expectations wore
. cnloulnted to excite disgust.'?. My uso of tho word dis
'? gust is tho' alleged offenoe.
In Mr. B.'s first statement, thora was the following
paragraph :
" His lordship Bald, ' tho only way in whioh 1 oan
? consent to give you compensation is to havo your per-
manent improvomonts valuod, and to givo you a. sum
> equal to that, to spend on tho plaoo where you aro going j
' and if you havo made any mistake, suoh as planting
' lucorno, and it has not answered as well as you oxpeoted,
1 a (leduotlon must bo made for that. Nor- can your
gardeti bo considered.' " I confess I have boen diígutteá
" at this.
This is Mr. B.'s acoountof tho conversation ; the point
' to bo observed is tho uso of tho word dltgutted.
i , In my fourth lotter, replying to Mr. B.'s statoment, is
> the passBgo alluded to by tho roviewor. It is as fol
' lows :
" With rospoot to tho luoorno paddoak, ddos not oom
' mon sonso say that experiments ara not to bo paid for
1 if they fall ? Suppose, nt Morpoth, or . Maitland, any
i man of businosB had built, on ronted premisos, a stnblo,
> so nonr tho river or crook that tho foundation bad givon
way, tho walls had oraokod, and tho atablo had bocomc
i dangerous or useless. If the landlord should offer this
i tenant compensation for permnnont improvomonts,
: would tho tenant expeot ns compensation tho full
J nmount ho had laid out on this stnblo. I think not,
i And ir, whon thoy wore Bottling tho kind of improvo
, monts willoh woro to bo,valued, tho tenant woro told the
. atablo oould bo valuod only at its present worth, and not
) at RB prime cost, would ho roasonably bo disgusted nt
j suoh n statement ? If anything liko disgust woro folt,
should it not be felt at his own covetous greedy expectations,
and not at the kind warning to save him from
disappointment?"
Who does not see that the word disgust, as here used
by me, has reference to the previous use of that word by
Mr. B. ; and is intended as a reproof to him for using it?
So that my reproving a young clergyman for using this
word respecting his Bishop is perverted by this ingeni-
ous reviewer—and by the writer of the pamphlet also—
into my using this indecent word myself respecting Mr.
B. And this is made the third and last charge against
me.
s i, I jhavo now,finished my. task, _ Tho_reylow,.ns nr.
9, ottaok against raysolf, wnB uttorly beneath my notloo
) j But I considered ita ignorant assertions as to the powoi
. ! i ! ' ' . '
of tbe bishop» and tho position of the clergy tniaht An
barm if unooñtradicted. I thought also thal á HUtement
of the modo in which the injustioe (arising from th«
funds granted for carrying out tho enactments of the
Church Act being insufficient, and theroforo lon« aso
exhausted) is now partially romediod-and would bo
most t.ffcctiutlly remedied in thin diooeso, if tho member»
of our Church would in all, ospooiully tho old settled
districts, praotiso tho Christian rulo of bearing ona '
another's burdons-might, bo useful, and not nuintor.
osting to Churohmon ot this time.
Tho reviewer is known to me, but without sayiog a
single word of him, or his motives, JO»
. , ,. -"I romain, .Sir, your obedient servant, I
W. NEWCASTLE. I
Mornotb, May 80, 1867. , I
$