« AnteriorContinuar »
ing it inconsistent with his actual position at the time towards the Bishop, and as knowing that such demonstrations could be valuable only in proportion as they were spontaneous.-Oxford Paper. The following letter has been addressed to the editor of The Standard :
London, Friday, Feb. 28, Eleven o'clock. Sir, I have just seen, on my return from the country, a statement in The Standard of yesterday, to the effect that I have been “ suspended” by the Bishop of London from the ministrations of Margaret Chapel. I request you to insert this my explicit contradiction of the fact. No change wbatever has been made with respect to the ministrations of the chapel.-I am, sir, your humble servant,
(From The Morning Herald.) We perceive that Mr. Oakeley has taken the trouble to write to The Standard, to contradict the report of his suspension. We shall, therefore, put the whole matter into a more accurate form, and invite Mr. Oakeley, if he wishes the public to understand the matter fully, to tell us
1. Whether he did not, several days since, receive a letter from the Bishop of London, calling for, or suggesting, a resignation of his licence ?
2. Whether, upon this, he or his friends did not remonstrate with the Bishop, on the subject of this summary exercise of power-and call for a fair trial, such as would have been adopted in the case of the incumbent of a parish? And,
3. Whether he is not aware, or has not reason to believe, that in abandoning his first idea, of recalling the licence, the Bishop only does so in compli. ance with his own requisition, and in order to bring the matter, by regular accusation, before the ecclesiastical courts?
The Rev. F. Oakeley has addressed the following letter to the Morning Chronicle.
London, March 1. SIR,- If I feel it best to set right one or two points in your notice of me in a leading article of this day, it is rather with the view of guarding the public generally against the habit of treating unauthorized statements, upon matters of which none but the parties directly concerned can be cognizant, than because I feel the particular misstatements in your paper of much consequence, or because I desire to establish for myself any precedent as to the conduct to be pursued by me for the future.
Yet I wish to say, that if a paper, so remarkable for fairness and moderation of tone on ecclesiastical subjects as The Morning Chronicle, falls (though in mere inadvertency and under a prudent qualification) into errors of this kind, it should be plain how little reliance is to be placed upon information hazarded by other papers, whose powers of discrimination on certain subjects are evidently suspended for the time, under the influence of strong party feelings. Thus, in The Morning Herald of to-day, questions are addressed to me which in some considerable degree carry with them their own answer, but with which, of course, I shall not directly deal, lest I should even appear to recognise some sort of accountability to an absolutely unauthoritative and obviously prejudiced tribunal. Let me observe, also, that I entertain no doubt of any questions on the recent matters affecting myself, in which the public may do me the favour of taking interest, righting themselves as time goes on. But many reasons will occur to indicate the propriety of silence on my part. At any rate, I wish it to be understood that I am prepared to suffer under any amount of (temporary) misconstruction, rather than to promote a discussion
which will, I am confident, issue in results far more favourable to myself than to any one else, but which would, in the meantime, most miserably disturb the peace of the Church of England.
Let me say, then, sir, under this protest, and with these explanations, that your account of the recent question between the Bishop of London and myself is inaccurate in the following particulars :-1. I have never been “suspended" by the Bishop of London, in the technical sense of the word. I abstained for five days from officiating, by my own offer, to which the bishop acceded. 2. The bishop asked me to resign before his lordship had received any “ letter" whatever from me. 3. I never “declined the bishop's suggestion," but took time to consider, and never sent in my formal answer. 4. I have never been “ formally" suspended, since I have never been suspended in any sense, except by my own voluntary proposal, which the bishop adopted. 5. The bishop could not“ recal" what his lordship never issued.
And so the matter remains, subject, no doubt, to material conditions, and dependent upon future (hypothetical) legal determinations. Whether the objectors to my present position will serve their cause by pressing forward these determinations, it is not, of course, for me to suggest, though I bare a private opinion upon the subject.
I am, sir, your obliged servant, FREDERICK OAKELEY.
To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle. SIR, -As your article on the subject of myself still gives rise, inadvertently, and through a want of clearness in my own letter, to an erroneous impression of some consequence respecting me, allow me to say that even when I wrote to you on Saturday, the question of my resignation was entirely at an end, by the Bishop of London having, under actual circumstances, and as farther advised, ceased to require it of me.
With this explanation, and with others which appear elsewhere, I close, as far as I myself am concerned, the whole question with the public papers, and leave any future misconceptions respecting me to correct or adjust themselves. Thanking you for your kind attention to my communication,
I am, sir, your humble servant, FREDERICK OAKELEY.
To the Editor of the Times. Sir,- I am directed by the Bishop of London to send you the enclosed para. graph for insertion in The Times newspaper.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant. London-house, March 3, 1845.
CHARLES B. Dalton. Various accounts having appeared in the public papers as to the steps taken by the Bishop of London with reference to the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, we are authorzied to state, that Mr. Oakeley has been allowed to continue his ministrations in Margaret-street chapel ad interim only, till the bishop shall have obtained the opinion of his legal advisers as to the proper course of proceeding in so grave a case.
We are also able to state, that there is no foundation for the report, that the bishop has received a communication from the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford on the subject of the letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor by Mr. Oakeley.
(From the Morning Post.) So much misconception has arisen out of the circumstances with which the name of Mr. Oakeley has lately been associated, that we think it may be
useful to state the facts as correctly as we believe it is possible to ascertain them.
The Bishop of London considered the letter of Mr. Oakeley to the ViceChancellor of Oxford as one that was deserving of grave notice, and the ques. tion of revoking the rev. gentleman's licence for Margaret Chapel was no doubt under consideration. But the licence never was revoked, nor was Mr. Oakeley ever suspended in any technical sense ; though he did, by a voluntary arrangement with the bishop, abstain from officiating for five days. In the meantime, the bishop, with the kind view of avoiding an extreme exercise of authority, suggested to Mr. Oakeley the resignation of his licence. To this request no answer was formally returned.
In the further consideration of the subject it was found to be full of diffi. culties : on the one hand, the opinion of an eminent civilian suggested great doubts, to which the Bishop of London allowed their due weight; then, though a revocation of the licence would have displaced Mr. Oakeley from Margaret Chapel, that gentleman holds a prebendal stall at Lichfield, from which he cannot be removed except by process in the ecclesiastical court; and as the case against Mr. Oakeley was not one of immorality, the bishop naturally felt reluctant to adopt summary proceedings against him. On the other hand, representations strongly in favour of the rev. gentleman's ministerial conduct and teaching were made by competent persons, including some of high station and still higher character. An address, of which we subjoin a copy, was submitted to the bishop, signed by all the regular attendants at the chapel. Many other representations were made of the incalculable mischief that would result from the breaking up of the congregation, in consequence of a procedure against a clergyman of Catholic opinions. Among these ill effects would not improbably have been that of an immediate counter-movement against Mr. Baptist Noel and others; and this was felt, we believe, by Mr. Noel's friends, who had tried to agitate against Mr. Oakeley, but were thus induced to forego the attempt.
Under these various yews of the case the Bishop of London determined not to suspend Mr. Oakeley, but with a proviso that the circumstances might still be the subject of legal consideration-though that, we believe, is not likely, on account of the great probability that the decision of the ecclesiastical courts would not sustain such proceedings as might be instituted against Mr. Oakeley
ADDRESS TO THB BISHOP OF LONDON FROM THE CONGREGATION OF
MARGARET CHAPEL. My Lord,We, the undersigned, being persons frequenting the services at Margaret Chapel, having been informed that your lordship has suggested to the Rev. Mr. Oakeley that he should resign his licence and retire from the ministry of the chapel, beg leave, with great respect, to make the following representations :
That Mr. Oakeley has for some years had the charge of the chapel, and during that period, partly by the mode of conducting the services, partly by the uncontroversial and practical tone of his teaching, and partly by his kindness and sympathy towards those who have had recourse to him for advice, has collected around him a body of persons, of various grades of opinion, who all hold him in high estimation.
That many persons have found, in the constant services of the chapel, opportunities of retreat from the hurry and anxiety of business ; others, occasions of retirement in seasons of distress; and we have reason to believe that many others, whose minds have been in a perplexed and unsettled state, have been quieted and held in their present position, by Mr. Oakeley's counsel and en: couragement in private.
That in our attendance on the service at Margaret Chapel we have never heard any doctrines inculcated which we have any reason to believe your lordship would have disapproved, and that we thoroughly believe that the influence exercised by Mr. Oakeley over the members of his congregation, and which in many cases is confessedly great, has always been exercised for good, and in restraining from extreme conclusions, when there might be any tendency to such a result.
That we are apprehensive that the retirement of Mr. Oakeley from Margaret Chapel will have a very injurious effect upon the minds of very many who now look to him for sympathy and support; and that it will, in many cases, produce the utmost distress and perplexity; and that, in so far as it may tend to the discontinuance of the chapel services in their present state, it will be a serious privation to us all.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND. Patronage of New Districts under Sir Robert Peel's Church Endowment
Act, 6 & 7 Victoria, cap. 37. By the 20th section of the above act, the right of patronage of any district or new parish constituted thereunder, and the nomination of the minister or perpetual curate, either in perpetuity or for one or more nomination or nominations, may be assigned to any ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, or to either of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or Durbam, or to any college therein respectively, or to any person or persons, or the nominee or nominees of such person or persons or body respectively, upon condition of such corporation, university, college, person or persons, contributing to the permanent endowment of such minister or perpetual curate, or towards providing a church or chapel for the use of the inhabitants of such district or new parish, in such proportion and in such manner as shall be approved by the ecclesiastical commissioners for England and the Queen in Couocil.
Several districts, for the assignment of the patronage of which no proposals have yet been made to the commissioners, have been approved generally by the board, subject to the further preliminary proceedings required by the act; and are intended to be shortly constituted.
Any parties desirous of obtaining the whole or any portion of the patronage of any one or more of the proposed districts, in accordance with the act, are requested to make an early communication to the commissioners.
Note. – Although no tixed general rules have been laid down respecting the conditions upon which patronage shall be assigned, no less consideration has been accepted for the whole patronage in perpetuity, than the providing of a church, with adequate accommodation, and a sufficient repairing fund, and the securing of 50l. a-year towards endowment, the remainder being supplied out of the monies at the disposal of the commissioners.
Portions of the patronage have been assigned for considerations of less amount, varying according to circumstances.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND. An account of the patronage of new districts under Sir R. Peel's Church Endowment Act, 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 37, has appeared.
By the twentieth section of the above act, the right of patronage of any district or new parish constituted thereunder, and the nomination of the minister or perpetual curate, either in perpetuity or for one or more nomina
tion or nominations, may be assigned to any ecclesiastical corporation aggre. gate or sole, or to either of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham, or to any college therein respectively, or to any person or persons, or the nominee or nominees of such person or persons or body respectively, upon condition of such corporation, university, college, person or persons, contributing to the permanent endowment of such minister or perpetual curate, or towards providing a church or chapel for the use of the inhabitants of such district or new parish, in such proportion and in such manner as shall be approved by the ecclesiastical commissioners for England and the Queen in Council.
The districts named in the following list, for the assignment of the patronage of which no proposals have yet been made to the commissioners, have been approved generally by the board, ard subject to the further preliminary proceedings required by the act, and are intended to be shortly constituted.
Any parties desirous of obtaining the whole or any portion of the patronage of any one or more of these projected districts, in accordance with the act, are requested to make an early communication to the commissioners.
Although no fixed general rules have been laid down respecting the conditions upon which patronage shall be assigned, no less consideration has been accepted for the whole patronage in perpetuity than the providing of a cburch, with adequate accommodation and a sufficient repairing fund, and the securing of £50 a-year towards the endowment, the remainder being supplied out of the monies at the disposal of the commissioners.
Portions of the patronage have been assigned for considerations of less amount, varying according to circumstances.
Proposed District. Population.
The Hurst . . . 4,114
Little Bolton, St. John. 4,500
Tonge . . . . 2,600
. . 2,624
2,183 Eccles- Pendleton . . . Paddington, St. Paul . 2,968 Liverpool . . . . . Bevington . . . 12,875
St. Simon . . . 7,600
St. Simon . . 5,150
Healey . . . . 2,414
3,300 Duckinfield ,
5,000 St. Mark . . 5,000 St. Thomas.
4,683 Whalley-Colne . . . Great Marsden . . 2,903 Christchurch . . . . Trawden .
. 2,432 Habergham Eaves. . . All Saints .
Lane Bridge, St. Paul . 2,700 New Church, in Rossendale · Lumb . . . . 2,262