The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-11-02 00:00:00

rte Eiberpool 'taiibarb.

Yearly subscription:
In Advance, 15s. On Credit, 17s.

TUESDAY MORNING, NOV. 2, 1847.

BEFORE proceeding to notice the various points
in the letter addressed to us last week by the Rev.
Cecil Wray, we must take leave once again to re-
mind that rev. gentleman, and our readers, that
this controversy was not sought, for by ourselves.
On the contrary, it was forced upon us, as an act
of duty which we owed to the public and to a most
active and honourable member of the Church Ex-
penditure Committee, Mr. G. G. Hornby, who had
been wantonly assailed and misrepresented, upon
the subject of matters connected with this church,
by some of the rev. gentleman's very indiscreet
friends. We had withstood repeated entreaties
from the inhabitants of the district, that we would
direct the attention of the Council and the public
to the mode in which the service was being per-
formed in St. Martin's. Its comparatively deserted
condition had been urged upon us again and again.
We withstood all these incitements, however, from
the repugnance which we felt to place ourselves in
direct antagonism with a minister of the Church,
upon a matter connected with the performance of
his own duties ; and it was only when we saw
grounds of interference of a character more pro-
perly secular,—when we learnt that the minister
and the churchwardens of St. Martin's were im-
pinging upon the freehold of the Church itself,
and that, for his very proper objection to the pro-
perty of the town being so dealt with, a gentleman
seeking readmission into the Council was assailed
by an undercurrent of opposition and obloquy,—
that we were led to approach the subject. Having
done so—having entered upon the task, painful
though it be, we shall not be driven from its per-
formance, either by charges of "falsehood," "unre-
lenting malice and unscrupulous attacks," or by
the sneer which is sought to be conveyed by the
epithet " religious," which the rev. gentleman at-
taches to this paper.
We shall proceed with his letter seriatim. He

says :
" First, then, I deny that I have been guilty of the
dishonesty of robbing the Corporation of their property.
On the contrary, I maintain that the property in St.
Martin's Church has, by the late alterations, been greatly
improved and rendered more valuable."

As we can scarcely be said to have accused Mr.
Wray of " the dishonesty of robbing the Corpora-
tion of their property," our reply to this part of
the rev. gentleman's denials will come more appro-
priately under the next head, in which he states
what we did accuse him of doing. The latter part
of the paragraph obviously contains Mr. Wray's
opinion only.
" Secondly,—/ deny that I have destroyed twelve pews
from which a rental of £4O was produced. So far from
it, the same occupants continue to pay the rental, and
have volunteered to pay an increased sum for the enlarged
accommodation now offered, and for the privilege of
kneeling, of which they were before deprived by the nar-
rowness of the pews."

With respect to the simple denial, we meet it
with the following passage from the report fur-
nished by the Corporation Surveyor to the Church
Expenditure Committee, as extracted from their
,proceedings :
" The Surveyor, with reference to the alterations made
in the pews and sittings of St. Martin's Church, reports :
" That the screen which has been introduced at the
communion advances 15 feet into the body of the church.
That in order to obtain this extended space, it was ne-
cessary to remove six single and two double pews, and to
curtail the space of the free sittings. That 26 pews have
been taken down, including the double ones, and 18
framed elbowed benches substituted.
" By these alterations the accommodation which the
church afforded has been reduced by 70 sittings and a few
free seats."

One or other of the gentlemen—Mr. Wray or
the Surveyor—is clearly in error. We ourselves
are certainly inclined to confide in the correctness
of the latter; for it is not easy to see how a
clear space could be gained and screened off
from the body of the church without pews
being removed. And, moreover, the Surveyor
has doubtless a plan of the interior of the
church previous to the removal of the sittings.
Perhaps, however, when the reverend gentleman
denies that he has " destroyed 12 pews, from which
a rental of £4O was derived," he means that the
number was not precisely 12, or the amount pre-
cisely £4O. The Surveyor, it will be observed,
says, that two double and six single pews were
removed, to procure the space required; and that
" 26 pews," in all, " including the double ones,
have been taken down, and 18 elbowed benches
substituted." Mr. Wray, however, does not deny
that-7o sittings have been destroyed.
In the latter part of the paragraph, the rev. gen-
tleman says " the same occupants continue to pay
the rental." Now, this assertion may be under-
stood in several ways. On a first perusal it may
lead an incautious reader to conclude, that the
parties formerly occupying the seats destroyed
continue to pay for the space, as it is at present
occupied; that, in fact, supposing the whole of
the church to have been let previously to the re-
moval of the pews, the same revenue would now
be produced. We believe, however, that it will be
found to mean only that the parties in question
have removed into other unoccupied pews, and
continue to be paying members of the congrega-
tion. But there is a rather singular variation be-
tween this paragraph, as originally furnished us,
and .the corrected version as published. The ori-
ginal says that they continue to pay " this same"
rental—that is, of £4O. The corrected version—
corrected by the gentleman who left the original
letter—says only " the" rental. We much suspect
that there is some meaning disguised beneath this
change of phraseology, simple though it appears.
If Mr. Wray did not mean it to be inferred that
they paid rental for the space given up, it would
have been sufficient to have said simply that they
paid " rental", instead of "the rental" ' • and it
would not have been going greatly out of his way
if he had said that they paid for seats in other
parts of the church. Perhaps the words " this
same" were considered as approaching too nearly
to a direct assertion that they paid for the same
space formerly occupied by the pews, which the
more general expression substituted leaves us in-
directly to infer.
The rev. gentleman continues
Thirdly,--I deny that there has been any misappli-
cation of the public funds.' About £6O was voted for
improving the kneeling accommodation, and it we ap-
plied to this object." _ _ _

We are not aware what right Mr. Wray has, by
marking the passage as a quotation, to lead the
public to conclude that we had ever used such
language as applicable to the conduct of a minister
of the Church. We need not say that no such
serious charge was brought against him. The
rev. gentleman has, however, himself furnished us
with something very like the materials for such a
charge, when lie says that " about £6O was voted
for improving the kneeling accommodation, and it
was applied to this object." Now let us see how
this assertion is borne out by fact.
On the 30th of April, 1845, the following letter,
signed by the minister and churchwardens, was
addressed to the Church Expenditure Committee :
" Gentlemen,—We beg to call your attention to a very
serious inconvenience which is felt by St. Martin's con-
gregation, in consequence of the want of proper kneeling
accommodation throughout the church. This, though
an essential part of church furniture, was not supplied
when St. Martin's was built ; and the height and narrow-
ness of the pews render it almost impossible for the pew-
holders to kneel devoutly with such boards or hassocks as
are ordinarily brought from other churches, or are usually
supplied for this purpose.
" A form; however, made according to the accompany-
ing model, bas been tried and found fully to answer its
PutesQ. It is intended to be firmly secured to the front
of the pew, and to become a fixture.
" As we are deeply impressed with the importance and

duty of providing what is necessary for a decent and
humble deportment of body in divine worship, and the
means of the congregation being inadequate to accom-
plish this work, we are in hopes that you will undertake
for us to supply this great deficiency, which will be a
boon very thankfully received by all."
Such letter received the consideration of the com-
mittee; and upon it the following resolution was
adopted at a meeting held on the 11th September,
1845 :

" The Chairman and Mr. Tiornby having reported on
the memorial from the Minister anfi Wardens of St.
Martin's Church, for certain articles to be provided, and
some repairs, that the same are necessary, and are esti-
mated at one hundred and twenty pounds,—
" Resolved,—That the kneeling forms and new furni-
ture, as also the repairs, be ordered by the wardens of
that church, at a sum not exceeding the estimate."

There is a discrepancy between the statement of
Mr. Wray and this resolution of the Church Ex-
penditure Comthittee, which really calls for some
explanation. The committee voted £l2O, the
amount of the estimate, for the kneeling benches,
applied for by the minister and churchwardens.
Mr. Wray says—"About £6O was voted for im-
proving the kneeling accommodation, and it was
applied to this object." What became of the addi-
tional £6O granted ? Hap dly we possess the
means of answering this question, and of pointing
out the application of the entire sum voted. But,
first, we request the reader's reperusal of the letter
of the minister and wardens. The application in
that letter was clearly for the providing in St.
Martin's Church the means " necessary for a de-
cent and humble deportment of body in divine
worship" ; and the form of the pews being such
as to render the ordinary benches or hassocks in-
convenient, " a model" was sent in to the com-
mittee of a peculiar sort of kneeling accommoda-
tion, taking up less room, "which had been tried
and found fully to answer its purpose," and which
was " intended to be firmly secured to the front of
the pew, and to become a fixture."

Nov,- how has the money granted for this pur-
pose been actually expended ? We have befor4s
an extract from the Corporation accounts, of which
the following is a copy :

" Amounts paid on account of the vote 11th Sept., 1845,
for kneeling forms, new furniture, and repairs.
" 1846. X. s. d.
April 17. Rev. C. Wray, for altar cloth, &c. 2l 14 4
0ct.14. Geo. Thompson, terracotta bench ends 57 9 0
Do. cleaning baize, &c 6 3 0
Dec. 22. Terra Cotta Co., for tiles .

Before the Coinmittee.
Geo. Thompson, widening benches .£1 0 8
Geo. Bowers, masons' work in widen-
ing pews