The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-03-25 00:00:00

Till LIVERPOOL STANDARD

REPLY TO VERAX.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

Sin,—l have been favoured with the notice of your
correspondent " Verax," in your last number, and with
your permission I would civilly acknowledge the favour in
your next.

I find I have incurred the displeasure of Mr. Verax by
exercising my right as a ratepayer of the parish of West
Derby, under the following circumstances.

The'Rector and Church;rardens wishing to remove the
parish church to a more convenient site, with enlarged
accommodation, raised for that purpose the sum of £7OOO-,
by voluntary contributions, having also a free site of four
acres given to them by the Earl of Sefton. They fixed
upon a design, the rough estimate of which was about
£lO,OOO, and they called a vestry to authorise them to
proceed according to that design with borrowed money,
to be repaid by instalments, with interest, out of a rate to
be levied for the purpose. They also proposed to sell to
the parish, for a burial ground, a portion of those 4 acres,
the proceeds of which were to go to the building of the
church, and thus proportionately lessen any rate that
might otherwise be required. The probable amount of
such deficiency they could not say; they merely asked
for power to lay on such rate as might eventually be found
necessary; but, to make it as light as possible, they pro-
posed to spread it over twenty years. The Chairman
thought " perhaps it might be nothing ;" but the Vestry
thought it as likely it might be something, and declined
both proposals—the burial-ground, because, by the act
of Parliament separating West Derby from Walton, they
are bound to pay rates for church and burial-ground there
for sixteen years to come, from which a new burial-ground
at West Derby would not relieve them, nor could they
see clearly how land could be sold to the parishioners
which had already been made a gift of to the parish
church ; and the rate they refused, because indefinite and
unnecessary. A poll was immediately demanded on be-
half of the Rector, the result of which confirmed the de-
cision of the Vestry. I voted and polled with the majo-
rity, for the following reasons.
1. I considered £7OOO in hand, with a free site, amply
sufficient to erect a church adequate to the wants of the
locality, and that anything beyond could only be for a
church unnecessarily large, or for mere architectural dis-
play. It therefore seemed to me unfair to impose a rate
for such purposes on Roman Catholics or other Dissenters
in the distant parts of the parish, who would not partake
of its accommodation, and could not even enjoy a sight of
its beauties except they made a trip of pleasure to it for
the purpose.
2. In various parts of the parish or township (for these
are now commensurate), the ratepayers are supplied with
churches raised by voluntary efforts in their respective
localities, which support their own ministers, various
church officers, and all expenses, without any cost to the
township or the rector of the parish—namely, St. Jude's,
Edge-hill, Stanley, and Knotty Ash churches, not to
speak of St. James's, which is just at hand. In Crown-
street, too, which is also in the parish, they are raising a
church for themselves, not thinking the metropolis of
West Derby sufficiently convenient, or Edge-hill even,
which is three miles nearer than West Derby ; and—to
come closer home—even in Fairfield they are about to
raise another by the same voluntary efforts, and have
not only counted the cost, but lodged the money in the
bank. I thought it, therefore, unfair to force upon
Churchmen even, a rate for a new parish-church, when
they had anticipated the kind consideration of the rector
and churchwardens, in providing accommodation for
themselves where it would be more available ; and the
more so, as they are already rated for the maintenance
not only of West Derby church, but that of Walton also.
3. The income of the parish is very large—£lsoo a-
year, as I was informed by an authority which I cannot
doubt till it be shaken by a better. Now there can be
no question but this was originally designed for the mini-
strations of the whole parish, and as it is not called upon
for a farthing by any of those churches and localities spe-
cified, it is thus set wholly free for the immediate locality
of the village of West Derby, and that angle of the parish
contiguous to it ; and it seemed to me that the other por-
tions of the parish had fairly done their part in leaving
these large means so entirely free for that purpose. Had
it been a crowded district, with poor people and a poor
living, the cry to come over and help them would have
met with a different response from the remotest corner of
the township ; but in such a neighbourhood as West
Derby, with such wealthy gentry and only such poor as
are necessarily interspersed among the rich, a call of that
sort, not for church accommodation, but for architectural
display, could reasonably expect no other echo than it
received. _ _ _

4. Such are my reasons for disapproving of the proposed
rate. But be it observed, that lam not the only clergy-
man who disapproved of it. I only differ from some in
openly opposing it; and I now add my reason for doing
so. I bad been much impressed by the lavish expendi-
ture of church property by some of the bishops in the
Ecclesiastical Commission upon their palaces, as exhibited
in Mr. Horsman's disclosures in the House of Commons;
and, more recently, in Sir B. Hall's letter to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. I felt it my duty to bring this
subject at different times before my congregation, to
awaken them and stir them up to an effort to reform these
abuses, and even too (strange as it may appear to some)
in connection with the papal aggression. lam opposed
to that aggression as much as any man I think can possi-
bly be. From the very first I held that some stringent
legislative measure was necessary, not merely for the
dignity of the crown, but the very safety of the consti-
tution and the welfare of the country, so far as these could
be secured by it. I warned my people, however, not to
trust in government for a remedy, as all they could expect
from them would be some enactment prohibitory of cer-
tain titles ; that any legislative measure could only be a
palliative ; for the same causes remaining, the same effects
must recur at longer or shorter intervals, and that the only
effectual barrier against aggression by any church, would
be found in the reform of our own. This I urged upon
them at the very pitch of excitement, when the Durham
torch wassped like some fiery cross from hand to hand, sum-
moning all England to the gathering, as my congregation
can bear witness. Therefore, when an abuse similar in
kind to those of the Commission, though infinitely
smaller in degree, showed its head in my own locality,
necessity was laid upon me to oppose it openly.
The article in the Mercury, of the 14th inst., to which
Verax refers, I wrote in consequence of not getting an
opportunity at the Vestry of stating fully the grounds of
my opposition, and on finding my conduct misrepre-
sented ; I drew it up (I thought) as temperately as possi-

ble, and inserted it in that paper, as it coming out the
day following. If it seem (as lam informed by some)
rather cutting in parts, though temperate as a whole, I
regret it, and desire to withdraw any term of expression
which appears so ; as my aim is not to he cutting but
convincing, knowing that plain facts are only blunted by
any sharp pointing. Speaking of that article, an active
and efficient clergyman of Liverpool observed to me,
" was it fair to direct those abuses against one individual,
which are only a part of the whole of the system ?" I
give not only the substance but I think the very words ;
and it was before a mutual friend who can correct me.
I acknowledged there was some force in what he said, if
it had been taken so, and that I would make amends the
first opportunity. Ido now make amends, and acknow-
ledge "it is only part of a whole—of a system." Alas !
that it should be so. I cast no exclusively personal impu-
tation on a rector in such a position. He finds himself in
certain circumstances which have become legalized, and
therefore may not feel himself called upon to disturb that
arrangement. But those not so circumstanced cannot
but view it differently, if their vision be not coloured by
hope, and the question then arrives—must a clergyman,
under the conviction that this state of V.ings is only a
part of the whole system, or the character of the system,
stand with his finger on his lips, sanctioning it by his
silence in particulars, because he cannot grapple with it
as a whole,—or, if lie break silence, be classed with the
common enemies of the Church ? I venture to think
otherwise. If those clergymen who acknowledge and de-
plore this system (and they are many) were to unite for
the removal of these abuses from our Church, as they do
for any other good purpose, I feel perfectly assured we
would cut the ground from beneath the very feet of her
enemies. They cannot point at her doctrines, but only at
her deformities. If these were removed, the truth, tole-
ration, and charity of her doctrines, would be revealed in
her countenance, and every pointed finger be lowered. Or
if there would be any solitary exception, he would be like
a man standing in public, and pointing with vacant gaze
at the moon in her fulness, leaving no other impression on
the mind of any bystander than the question of his own
sanity.

Th'anking you, Mr. Editor, for this kind indulgence of
space, I respectfully submit this statement as a sufficient
reply to all objectors, and remain,

22nd March, 18M

Your obedient servant,
A. M'CONKEY,
Incumbent of St. James's, West Derby

P.S.—" Verax" leads his readers to suppose that the
Bishop refused a district, whereas he never did, but,
on the contrary, was always willing to grant one at any
time, if the Rector had consented.