The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-25 00:00:00

sussoes atom) Linn.

Danbury Palace, Jan. 24, 186.3.
My dear Sir,—l may assure you that the apprehensions
of " a person having been to me with accusations against
you." and "animated possibly by private motives to malign
mi," are quite needless.
The sum of the reports made to me is that you were farm-
ing somewhat largely, and acting as a sort of agent or
manager for the squire of your parish. The statements
some to me about the same time, separately, from two
of the officers of the diocese, whose duties (long since
organised) require them to report to the bishop on
anything which seems to be irregular among their
neighbouring parishes. They know that 1 should
wish to mania a clergyman so connected from
officiating in the diocese (except under any sudden /mar-
tens?), and, as in duty bound, they reported the facts. I I
do not gather from your letter that the substance of the re-
ports is incorrect ; and I therefore see no reason (under the
explanation given) for infusing any personalities into •
matter which is purely official, by introducing names. I
have a clear remembrance of your mentioning, on the two
occasions to which you refer, the possibility of year assisting
at times a clergyman in difficulty, and of your farming.
From the latter, I believe that I endeavoured briefly to dis-
suade you at the time. The extent to which both occupa-
tions are carried appears to have attracted general atten-
tion, and appears to me certainly objectionable. I regret
' that I expensed myself so u to imply (if my words did so)
that the present was the fret time ot hearing of your
occupation.—Believe me, yours very sincerely
J. 0. ifocgiurrn.

W. A. wrAccroom TO THA BISHOP OP BOCKIIITIOL
Writtle Vicarage, Jan. 26, 1863.
My Lord Bishop,—l bare hoard with regret and asto-
nabs:est (tedium in which many parer= in this neigh-
bourhood participate) that the sev. G. Davies has been
prohibited by your lordship from officiating in this
diocese. In hopes that you may be induced to
reconsider this question, permit me, with all doe rasped
to the episcopal office which your lordship holds, to
may a few words. Now I have know the Rev. G. Davies
from • hoy. Be wise pupil of mina at Winchester and he
is well known to the church at large by his literary labourrA
especially those'' Papers on Preachiog, by • Wykebamist.
In whatever parishes he has officiated he has left sante=
treason his seal sad earnestness, in schools built sedans:has
restored, and in his present home his influence is exerted in
every way for the good of those around him. I am Wooed
to vesture on this application because, in 1861, Mr. Davies
acted =my temporary curate, during my severe Moe.. And
I will undertake that every man in this parish shall testify to
the efficiency with which he performed the duties. Oo Sunday
last my church wardeu, whim he beard of this astoniabingeir.
commence, said to
berme am surprised, for Mr. Davies is •
very able man.* I that I could not have better *said
my peeishiasers if I had been able to offer and he to accept
my parlament °Fumy. It was well known to your lordship
that he did so act, and bad it then been ao injustice to the
diocese, I presume that 1 should have had some intimation
to this effect. lam no blind advocate of this cm= In
matters of dims and non-msentials be knows my opinion
well. Indeed no one can regret more than I do that Mr.
Davie,' talents and scholarship should not have been given
permanently (as they were for twelve years) to the ministry
of the church. I understand his health will not permit him
to undertake parochial work. I entertain hopes that your
lordship will see that this ishibitke will inflict on Mr.
Davies an injury which lam meta& you could not have
intended. It will follow him through hfs ; for who will
believe it whim he shall say that he was inhibited from
off= in the diocese of Rochester solely bermes he
e , and associated with farmers" ? Will any man alive
believe that be has not kept something heck ? This ben is
indirectly a reflection on those clergymen in whose churches
Mr. Davies has officiated. I have been in the active duties
of my pretend= since 1829, and I sever heard that there
could be an objection to availing oneself of the services of a
clergyman against whom riot the shadow of as offense lea
been proved. May I thee respectfully ask, are the clergy of
this ..oriee who know Mr. Danes to be deprived of his se-
ssional assistance (I do sot speak for myself, as I have a
curate) if there are so other grounds than that be (who is
sot an seen. to the statute of Elisabeth) farms, and asso-
ciates with farmers I If there are other grounds, permit me
to ask, _

" Quim
Delator, quibus quo torte pro ,it soo?"

I mud a copi Of this to Mr. Davies, wbo is at liberty to
Lake say ass be likes of it ; sad the smiting of it is a duty I
owe to the moo who helped when I was most is used.—l
am, my lord, yours most faithfully, A. I). SMILPOOLL

1111 BIBBOA DRYLY TO ML ITACILPOOLI AND KB. DDINTX.
Danbury, Jaa. 28, 1863.
My dear beg to sclreowledge your note of yester-
day. At present I can only promise that the subject shall
have my beet cossideretiou, and that I will communists
to you after a time the result of such deliberation with the
friends is the neighbourhood, who are deeply interested is
what I may do. Though I do not in any way shrink from
the responsibility of my own act in respect of Mr. Davies,
it is due to myself to state, that it ham sot hese done hastily,
or without due consideration of Mr. Davies' respectable and
good steadies iu the church and is society. My somewhat
ultimate and old acquaintance with him and his father has
made the matter one of special difficulty to me.— Youn
very sincerely, J. C. !Woman.