M&:

-m

4F*%

*>3

N

.*>

'%Mf

T&

*u

pyttt

•V -A

?§

M

«J /VV\^|jW3' J

m^k°£

» <**V
YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

QOREESPONDENCE
ON THE SUBJECT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ALLEGED
BY THE BISHOP OF OXFORD AGAINST THE
INCUMBENT OF GROVE, BERKS.

Kara npetr/Wepov Kartiyopiav ^ wapaSexov,
itcrbs el fj.7j iw\ 5tJo *# T'piQv fjLapTvp&v.

(No. 1.)
Rev. Sir, Windsor, April 7, 1851.
It is with much Pain I inform you that the Enquiries I
have recently made have convinced me that the Spiritual Charge of
your Parishioners of Grove has of late been much neglected.
This is the more grievous because the Church and Parsonage of
Grove having been recently erected by the pious Zeal of the
excellent Provost of Worcester and others, on Purpose to secure for
its Inhabitants the Blessing of a resident Ministry of Christfs
Gospel, your holding it in Plurality, and subjecting it*to all the Evils
of Non-Residence defeats the Object of a Work of Christian Charity,
and must discourage others in such Labours.
It was the Fear that such Results would follow, which led me to
represent to you two years ago, that as you could not really dis
charge the Duties of Grove with the Charge of the populous Parish
of Eynsham, with the Lectureship of Carfax, Oxford, and with your
busy Magisterial Life, you should either provide a competent Stipend
for a resident Curate,* or sacrifice, for the Benefit of the People,
the trifling Gains you make by retaining it, and resign the Benefice.
In which Case, to remove your Scruples, I had, as you know, obtained
the Consent of the Patron either to appoint your own Curate, Mr.
 , to it, or to place the Nomination in the Hands of the
Provost of Worcester.
Such a Course would have avoided the discreditable Squabbles
about Stipend, in which you have been involved with your two last
Curates, and would have prevented the Neglect and Scandal of the
last Months.
The Letter of Mr. CaudwelL one of the most respectable Inha
bitants of your Parish (of which he has transmitted me a Copy),
gives you his assurance that he considers the Charge of Souls to
have been grievously neglected, and mentions some Cases of Neglect
and Scandal e. g. : —
(1.) The leaving John Symonds to die without the spiritual Offices
he had sought from you ;
* The Gentleman mentioned by his Lordship in the very nexfsentenoe had
been the " resident Curate" of Grove for two years at the time to which the
Bishop refers. Of the " competency" of his " Stipend" I need only say that it
very considerably exceeded the gross Income of the Living, and that Mr. 
was succeeded m the Curacy by a gentleman to whom the Bishop — as "will
be hereafter seen — felt that, " in his judgment," he could "justly allow" a
smaller stipend.
I may here observe, that from the year 1832, when the Church and Parsonage
of Grove were erected under circumstances so truly described by his Lordship,
I was myself constantly resident in the Parish for a period of fourteen years,
during which time, in addition to the subscription of £20 towards the building
of the Church, I expended upon the general improvement of the benefice,
the erection of an organ, &c. several hundred pounds. — W. S. B.

(2.) The Imputations, touching the money subscribed for the
Coal Club ; and
(3.) The Charges against the Moral Conduct of your late Assistant
(whom you employed contrary to the Rule I have laid down for such
Cases). I grieve that the attached Laity of our Church should thus be
placed in Opposition to their Minister.
As your appointing your Curate interchangeably between your
two Livings gives you a legal Mode of lowering his Stipend, I cannot
give your new Curate all that I should desire : and I can, therefore,
only admonish you, which I do most solemnly, to see, so far as you
can, that no such Neglect or Scandal again injures the Population of
Grove. In consequence of the Correspondence which- has recently passed,
I shall transmit a Copy of this Letter to Mr. Caudwell.
I am, Rev. Sir, Yours truly,
Rev. W. 8. BrickneU. S. OXON.

(No. 2.)
My Lord, Eynsham Vicarage, July 7, 1851.
Having received the usual notice of your Lordship's
ensuing Visitation, it becomes a duty which I owe to my own cha
racter as a Clergyman to address you with reference to the "most
solemn admonition'" which, some weeks since, your Lordship thought
fit to convey to me, founded partly upon a communication in writing
made to you by Mr. Caudwell, a farmer in my Parish of Grove, and
partly upon circumstances which had previously formed the subject
of a correspondence between your Lordship and myself.
Your Lordship states that Mr. Caudwell — adopting the expression
used by your Lordship in a private note to himself* — " considers the
charge of souls at Grove to have been grievously neglected," and that,
in support of this accusation, he " mentions some" specific " cases of
"neglect and scandal, e.g. the leaving John Symonds to die without
"the spiritual offices he had sought of me : imputations touching
" the money subscribed for the coal club :" and " charges against
" the moral character of my late assistant."
Having made this statement, your Lordship — without even asking
for any explanation on my part, without giving me the slightest
information as to the nature of the " imputations" said to be afleged
against me by Mr. Caudwell, — proceeds to "admonish me most
" solemnly to see that no such neglect or scandal again injures the
" population of Grove ;" and, having done this, you send a copy of
your letter to my accuser ! •
My Lord, I solemnly protest against this trifling on your Lord
ship's part with my Ministerial character.
I speak advisedly when I say that the communication which your
Lordship admits having received from Mr. Caudwell is a defamatory
libel, the publication of which, by the same party, needs no further
proof than the evidence which you have put into my hands ; and I
now call upon your Lordship to institute the fullest and most open
investigation possible into the charge of my having "left John
Symonds to die without the spiritual offices he had sought of me ;"
and also to specify and as strictly investigate the "imputations
* Vid. inf., p. 0.

touching the money subscribed for the coal club," which your
Lordship states are " mentioned " by Mr. Caudwell in " a letter of
which he has transmitted you a copy," but of which no mention
whatever is made in the original transmitted to myself!
Upon the "charges against the moral character of my late"
temporary "assistant" I do not feel it necessary to -enter, your
Lordship having inhibited Mr.  solely on the ground of his being
an unlicensed Curate. But, since your Lordship has been pleased to
turn the fact of his being so unlicensed into a charge against myself,
and to accuse me of having " employed Mr.  contrary to the
rule laid down in such cases," I must be allowed, in my own defence,
to remind you that in replying to the annual questions forwarded to
me by your Lordship, at the commencement of the present year,
under the provisions of 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, I gave you, in two
separate returns, — the one for Grove, the other for Eynsham — the
name of  M.A. as my " unlicensed" Curate, immediately after he
entered upon the duties of my Parish. Added to this, your Lordship '
must have been aware that since Dr.  left my Curacy, nearly
twelve months ago, you had licensed no person in his place, until
you ordained my present Curate upon my recent nomination. It is
impossible therefore to believe but that your Lordship must have
been, all along, cognizant of the fact that I was employing an
unlicensed curate at Grove.
Having disposed then of this charge, and having formally called
upon your Lordship for a full and open investigation of the two
remaining allegations made to you by Mr. Caudwell, I proceed, as
briefly as the importance of the case will allow, to notice the other
portions of your Lordship's Letter.
It would appear, from the first clause in that Letter, that the
accusation of having " much neglected the Spiritual Charge of my
Parishioners at Grove" is supported by other evidence than that of
Mr. Caudwell : '" the enquiries you have recently made have con
vinced" you that such neglect has taken place.
My Lord, you are aware that certain questions which you lately
addressed, through Mr. Caudwell, to the Churchwardens of Grove,
together with, a private note in which you requested him " to see those
questions clearly and properly answered," were unexpectedly placed,
by Mr. Caudwell, in my hands in vindication of his own conduct.
I know nothing of the answers given to those questions by the
Churchwardens ; but if they were unsatisfactory to your Lordship ;
if they were of such a nature as to justify the charge which you have
brought against me on any of the points to which they referred,
they ought to form the subject of a Presentment at your Lordship's
ensuing Visitation. If no such Presentment be made, and if your
Lordship withhold from me the information which you have received
from the Churchwardens in reply to specific questions put to them
by yourself — questions which you have gone very far indeed out of
the usual course to have " clearly and properly answered" — then, my
Lord, you must pardon me if I say that I shall not believe that your
Lordship has derived, from your inquiries addressed to the Church
wardens, any evidence whatever to " convince" you " that the Spi-
" ritual Charge of my Parishioners of Grove has of late been much
" neglected." I pass on to another topic ; the Charge of " subjecting" the Parish
of Grove " to all the evils of non-residence by holding it in Plurality."
This, as your Lordship is aware, is no new imputation. I have
before me a letter, dated May 30th, 1850, in which your Lordship -
states that "the souls, of the people are, you verily believe, grievously
endangered by my retaining the Living, and by constant changes

in the person of its actual minister." Two changes only had oc
curred, during a period of nearly eighteen years, when your Lordship
made this assertion. If a third was then rendered necessary, contrary
to my expectations, by the removal of my Curate within a month
from the time of his Ordination to Grove, it was a change in which
your Lordship not only acquiesced, but which you urged upon me to
allow as "the course of Christian Kindness," and that too upon the
sole ground that my Curate had "formed another engagement highly
advantageous to himself in income and neighbourhood" It was
with no little surprise therefore that I found your Lordship, as soon
as this change had taken place, " earnestly pressing upon my con-
" science the duty of resigning the Living," " because you "verily
" believed that the souls of the people were grievously endangered
" by constant changes in the person of its actual minister .•" and
I ventured, my Lord, on that occasion, to remind you that the
attainment elsewhere, of "greater advantages of income and neigh
bourhood" must necessarily tend to render uncertain the residence
of any Minister on a Benefice the net income of which — calculated
according to the provisions of 1 and 2 Vict, c.106 — is only .£81 8s. 1M.
subject to further deductions of more than half that amount for
necessary payments and expenses ; and that by taking those ex
penses upon myself, and giving my Curate — in addition to the
wages of a servant, the use of furnished apartments in the Par
sonage, and of a good garden without any expense of cultivation —
£50 a year, I was in fact placing that Curate in a better position
than he could occupy were he the Incumbent of the Parish, and thus
doing all I could to avoid the " evil of perpetual change."
Before I quit this subject, let me refer your Lordship to the opi
nion expressed by the Commissioners for tlte subdivision of Parishes
in their second Report ; — " It is clearly impossible," they say, " to se
cure the continued services of an efficient resident Minister for £50,
£60, or even an £100. — It is difficult to find persons willing to under
take the charge of Cures which entail more than the responsibility,
but yield less than the Salary of a Curacy." — It is not likely, my
Lord, that an exception to this statement should be found in the
case of a Benefice, a very considerable part of the income of which.
is derived from more than sixty poor tenants whose payments vary
from three to fifteen shillings a year.
One word, my Lord, on your renewed proposal that I should re
sign the Living, and "sacrifice, for the benefit of the people, the
trifling gains," which, in a. former letter, you more correctly de
signate as " absolutely nil."
On this point I have only to repeat what I stated to your Lord
ship some time since, and beg, once more, distinctly to inform you
that I retain the Benefice of Grove not from any mercenary motives
of " trifling gain ;" not, as you were pleased to intimate on a former
occasion, "for my own fancied convenience," "as a place to which to-
retire when wearied with Eynsham and Carfax ;" but from a con
scientious belief — for which belief I claim equal sincerity with your
Lordship— that my resignation of the Living would, ultimately at
least, subject the souls of my people to spiritual injury and danger
far more " grievous" than any to which, under present circumstances,
they are exposed: that a, pro tempore presentation to such a Benefice
as Grove would hold out, against "greater advantages of income and
¦neighbourhood" elsewhere, but a very faint hope indeed of avoiding
the "evil of perpetual change," and, at best, defer only for a season,
the danger which your Lordship rightly judges* that I feel it a
* A mutual friend of myself and the Bishop of Oxford, referring to a eonver-

conscientious duty to avert, and which — God being my helper  I
will avert as long as I have the power to do so.
I feel scarcely called upon to notice the reference which your
Lordship makes to supposed "discreditable squabbles about stipend,"
in which you say that I " have been involved with my two last
Curates." Dr.  received the stipend which he willingly accepted
in the first instance ; to whioh he never at any time demurred, and
upon which, after ten months' correspondence between your Lord
ship and myself, he was ultimately licensed. Of Mr.  's tempo
rary engagement your Lordship appears to have known nothing until
you inhibited him from officiating in the Parish as an unlicensed
Curate : since therefore any information which you possess upon
this subject can be but the ex-parte statement of a third person, and
any inference deduced from it must necessarily be of little import
ance, I shall content myself with saying, that I have never paid nor
proposed to pay less than the amount sanctioned by your Lordship,
and that I have never acted towards any Curate otherwise than,
under similar circumstances, I should hope to be treated myself
Much, my Lord, as I have been surprised by the various state
ments contained in your Letter, there is one point which I have yet
to notice, and which has occasioned me more astonishment than I
can express.
I refer to your Lordship's assertion that, " as my appointing my
Curate interchangeably between my two Livings gives me a legal
mode of lowering his Stipend, your Lordship cannot give my new
Curate all that you should desire."
My Lord, after the ten months' correspondence which passed
between us upon this subject in the year 1849 — during the whole of
which period you suffered my Curate to officiate unlicensed — it can
scarcely be necessary for me to remind you that the effect of an
"interchangeable appointment" upon the question of a Curate's
Stipend is the very reverse of that whioh you now ascribe to it !
Your Lordship will remember that upon my nominating Dr. 
to my Curacy, you mentioned £150 — (the highest sum which you
could legally assign) — as the stipend to which you considered him
entitled. In your note of Feb. 26, 1849, you call my attention to the
clause in the 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106," by which the stipend of an inter-
•changeable Curate is regulated, and express your opinion that the
clause was "intended to discourage Incumbents holding smaller
Benefices unless for the purpose of affording by their doing so, a
larger Stipend than could otherwise be provided for the poorer
Living!" In support of this opinion your Lordship quoted the
following words from the Act referred to : " if any Incumbent of
two Benefices . . . shall employ a Curate to perform ecclesiastical
duty interchangeably," &c. "it shall be lawful for the Bishop to
assign such Curate any Stipend not exceeding such Stipend as would
be allowed under this Act for the larger of such Benefices." (sic.)
Had your Lordship proceeded a little further, and added the few
words which immediately follow, " nor less than would be allowed for
the smaller, as to the Bishop, under all circumstances, shall appear
just and reasonable," — the intention of the Legislature in framing
the clause in question would have been made more apparent. But,
whatever that intention may have been, it is clear, from your Lord-
sation between his Lordship and Mr. Butler, Vicar of Wantage and Patron of
the benefice of Grove, detailed to him by the Bishop, writes : — " The Bishop
thought that you might be prevented from resigning the Living by your con
science keeping you from lethng.it fall into the hands of a Tractarian. Upon
this suggestion Mr. Butler offered to' put the patronage, pro tempore, into the
hands of any one whom the Bishop might approve."
A2

ship's own words, that when you wrote to me in February, 1849, you
were very far from supposing that an " interchangeable appoint
ment gave me a legal mode of lowering my Curate's Stipend," or
deprived yourself of the power of giving to such Curate " all that
you should desire."
My Lord, you will further recollect, that, upon my remonstrating
with you on the amount, of Stipend specified by your Lordship as
being "under all the circumstances," neither "just" nor "reasonable,"
you met me with the remark that mine " was not a case in which
the continuance of a Plurality is of-essential moment to the Incum
bent holding the -Plurality :" that you "could see no hardship in
" the case, -because you could see no advantage to myself or the
" Church in my retaining Grove:" because " you saw so simple
" a remedy within my power if I felt in any way injured by the
" Stipend you assigned my Curate."
Your Lordship, nowe ver, subsequently fixed that Stipend at £100,
in addition to the use of furnished apartments in the Parsonage, the
garden, and a servant. At later periods of our correspondence, you
reduced the amount still further. Writing from "near London,
July 2," your Lordship says, "I require you over and above the
" advantages you propose to allow him,- to pay your Curate £75."
From " Lavington, near Petworth," your Lordship writes, July 30th,
" I am sincerely desirous to meet your wishes as far as possible, and
" am therefore willing to divide the difference between the balances
" respectively proposed by you and myself, and to licence your
" Curate at a salary of £62 10s. plus the advantages offered by you."
And when, at last, my Lord, I was obliged to intimate that, unless
my original nomination were accepted, I had no alternative but to
abandon the interchangeable appointment altogether, and nominate
a Curate to Grove alone, leaving him to receive the whole income of
the Benefice, and to be responsible for all the outgoings to which,
under such circumstances, he would be liable ; — when your Lord
ship saw that, so far from lowering his Stipend, the "interchangeable
appointment" materially improved the position of the Curate of
Grove,— then, my Lord, you acceded to the terms which I proposed
to you- ten 'months before, and in a note from " Great Hampden
House," dated Oct. 19th, informed' me that " though it would' indeed
be in your power to appoint my Curate the whole Stipend, and to allow
him not to occupy the house, which would secure him the Stipend
you desired" — (involving my Lord, at the same time " all the evils
of nonr^residence")^-jett'ha.t your "sole object was to deal' justly
in the matter," and that "in your judgment, you could now
JUSTLY ALLOW THE NOMINATION I FORMERLY SENT YOU IF I STILL
DESIRED TO ABIDE BY IT !"
And: yet, my Lord,! now find you stating that "as my appointing
" my. Curate interchangeably between my two Benefices, gives me a
" LEGAL MODE OF LOWERING HIS "STIPEND, YOU CANNOT GIVE HIM ALL
"that you should desire!" I feel, my Lord, that comment
upon these two statements would be as superfluous as any attempt
to reconcile them must be hopelessly impracticable.
Havihg'now replied- to every portion of your Lordship's Letter,
bear with me while I take a short review of the treatment which
I have experienced at your hands, with reference to the Benefice of
Grove, during the last four years.
Mr.Butler had scarcely been instituted to the Vicarage of Wantage,
and thus become the Patron of the Perpetual Curacy of Grove, when
I heard, from unquestionable authority, that he had been engaged, at
Cuddesdon Palace, in measuring the distance between Grove and
Eynsham; and that he had expressed his determination to " oblige

Mr.Bricknell to give up one or other of his Livings." A few days
elapsed, and I received from your Lordship a note from whioh I make
the following extract :
" I suppose you to hold Grove with Eynsham, under the section of
" the Plurality Act which allows Benefices within ten miles of each
" other to be held together. Now / have carefully measured the
" distance, on my ordnance -map, from church tp church, and I make
" it, in the most direct line, irrespective pf the turnings of roads,
" eleven mites and a half'' After expressing yeurppinion that I am
" setting an example of Pluralities which is much tc be regretted,"
your Lordship concludes :
" I speak, my dear Sir, with- the perfect openness which those may
" use to each other who know their common object;isso to live that
" they may best promote the glory of their God and' Saviour."
The reply which I made to this note must, I am sure, have sug
gested to your Lordship's mind; that it would have been far more
generous to have ascertained, — as you. might very easily have done,
- — the' real grounds on which I was holding the two Benefices in
question, than to take for granted that I held them under the pro
visions of an Act of which I could not possibly have availed myself
without gross and wilful misrepresentation. My "full statement of
the case," however, " entirely did' away the objection of distance :"
your Lordship expressed yourself "much obliged to me for that state
ment, and very glad to know the answer."*
But, my Lord, if you were satisfied and "obliged" there was one
who was yet "heavy' and displeased," for his eye still rested upon
his neighbour's vineyard. Mx-. Butler, as I was next given to under
stand, felt "greatly troubled by the lack of an effective Ministry at
Grove :" — " his judgment as to that lack having been made known,"
to your Lordship, " in Consequence of questions on your part."
My Lord, two Curates only had officiated at Grove when the Vicar of
Wantage became thus disquieted : to the one your Lordship tells me
that Mr. Butler was willing to present- the" Living in case I could be
persuaded to resign ; to the other, in' Mr. Butler's- presence, your
Lordship personally expressed your regret that he was leaving Grove !
Strange testimony thisj' my Lord; !to the 'inefficiency of their Minis
trations !
Then came the tempting assurance that " no-fear of an -improper
" successor following me need induce me to. retain Grove in -plurality,
" since the question of the next presentation might be arranged to
" my satisfaction," by the appointment of some person whom I ap
proved, and who would hold the Benefice — how long? — until the
offer of "a better vineyard than it," — the attainment of "greater
advantages of income and neighbourhood" elsewhere, should enable
the troubled Patron to " go down and take possession."
My Lord, I could not satisfy myself that, in yielding to such a
proposition as this, I should be, using " all faithful diligence to banish
and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's
Word," and therefore I declined the offer.
And what, my Lord, hais been the result ? " For the sake of the
* " And be it further enacted that nothing in this Act contained shall be -
" construed toypreveiit any spiritual person possessed of one or more than one
" Benefice at the time of the passing of this Act, and to whom, or in trust for
" whom, the Advowson of, orthe.next presentation or nomination to any.other
" Benefice has been conveyed, granted, or devised' by any deed pr -will made
" before the 23rd day of December 1837, from taking the said last-mentioned
" Benefice, anil holding together such Benefices, and a,ny one such first-men-
" tioned Benefice, although the Benefices to be held together be not within the
" limits prescribed by this Act." 1 and 2 Viet. 106, s. 13.

8
" souls of my Parishioners at Grove, and for the sake of my own
" account at the Great Day," your Lordship "deeply laments my
" decision :" — " The souls of the people," your Lordship tells me,
"are grievously endangered by perpetual change:" — " grievous
" spiritual injury is inflicted," and that "for my own fancied conve-
" nience :" — until at length, my Lord, no longer dealing in general
assertions, you have set up a specific accusation supported by evi
dence privately obtained, and have pronounced your " most solemn
admonition" in a case which you do not even think it necessary to
ask me to explain, upon " imputations" the nature of which you alto
gether withhold !
That case and those " imputations" I once more call upon your
Lordship openly and fully to investigate.
I will only add, that at a recent Vestry Meeting of my Parishioners
at Grove, and in the presence of Mr. Caudwell, I publicly declared
my determination to make this appeal to your Lordship previous to
your approaching Visitation.
Respectfully begging your Lordship to understand that I reserve
to myself, as on former occasions, the full right of making such use
as may be thought necessary of this communication and of any cor
respondence arising out of it,
I remain, my Lord,
Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
W. S. BRICKNELL.
The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Oxford, &c. &c.

(No. 3.)
Reverend Sib, 27, Parliament Street, July 11, 1851.
I am desired by the Lord Bishop of Oxford to inform
you that he has received your letter of July 7th, but that he declines
entering now into any further investigation of the grounds of the
admonition he forwarded to you on the 31st of March last,* on the
complaint of one of the principal laymen of your parish, and as to
which you have been silent between three and four months.
His Lordship further desires me to add, that he declines to cor
respond with a Clergyman who can address his Bishop in the
newspapers in the language employed by you.
I am, Reverend Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
JOHN BURDER,
Rev. W. S. BrickneU. Secretary.

(No. 4.)
My Lord, Eynsham Vicarage, July 14, 1851.
In reply to my letter to your Lordship of the 7th
instant, — delayed, for reasons which I need not specify, until notice
had been given of your ensuing Visitation, — I have received a note
from your Secretary Mr. Burder, in which that gentleman, instructed
by your Lordship, informs me "that you decline entering into any
further investigation ofthe grounds of the admonition forwarded to
me on the complaint of one of the principal laymen of my parish,"
and " further, that you decline to correspond with a Clergyman who
can address his Bishop in the newspapers in the language employed
by me." "a r
* His Lordship's Letter is dated April 7th.— W. 8. B.

As it is impossible, under these circumstances, that I can again
privately communicate with your Lordship upon the subject, I have
no alternative but to adopt the step which I now take in order to
¦vindicate my own character and conduct. In forwarding to Mr. Caud
well a copy of your " admonition" your Lordship gave to it a pub
licity which your knowledge of human nature could not but an
ticipate, and which you will not therefore be surprised at finding that
it has attained : it is but just that they who hear the charge should
know the answer.
1. Upon your Lordship's determination to " decline any further
investigation," I have only to remark that the letter in which your
" admonition", was contained gave me the first intimation of the
charges on which that " admonition" was founded. Your Lordship,
so far from asking for any explanation on my part, did not even
specify the nature of the " imputations" on account of which you
thought fit to " admonish" me ; and I now fearlessly assert that had
you ever instituted any investigation at aU into the matter, your
Lordship could not have written the letter of which I have so much
reason to complain.
2. The statement that your Lordship's " admonition" was " founded
on the complaint of one of the principal laymen of my Parish," is
calculated to convey so very erroneous an impression of the facts of
the case, that I must again refer, though most unwillingly, to cir
cumstances which I would gladly have passed over in silence.
Your Lordship knows that the moment I heard ofthe "charges
against the moral conduct of my late" temporary. " assistant," I inti
mated to him that, until some investigation had taken place, he
must abstain from officiating in my Parish. Immediately after
taking this step I was informed, through several distinct channels,
that an official communication on the subject, from your Lordship,
addressed to " the Churchwardens of Grove," was lying in the hands
of Mr. Caudwell, a farmer m the village, and a perfect stranger to
your Lordship. The Churchwardens, at my request, applied to Mr.
Caudwell for that communication : it was withheld until a late hour
in the evening of the following day, when, after having been first
taken to Wantage — it was handed to my Churchwarden in an
envelope the seal of which had been broken. The surprise which such
a circumstance as this naturally excited induced Mr. Caudwell, as I
have already observed, to send me, in his own defence, a copy of the
following private note from your Lordship to himself with which the
communication intended for the Churchwardens was accompanied.
"WooHey Park, March Uth, 1851.
" Dear Sir, " I cannot but fear from what J saw of the Con-
"firmation Candidates, tickets, &c, at Wantage yesterday afternoon,
" that the charge of the souls of the people of Grove has been of late
"grievously neglected :* as I know from your position and character
* The Confirmation to whioh the Grove Candidates were summoned on this
occasion, took place at Wantage on Sunday, March 23rd, a day on which it
was manifestly impossible that either myself or my curate could accompany
them. In point of number they were not below the usual average in propor
tion to the population and taking into account the age recommended by the
Bishop. They were not examined by his Lordship, much less did he reject any
one of them as an unfit recipient ofthe sacred rite which he was administering.
I have no reason to believe that they behaved in an unbecoming manner ;
certainly no complaint of the kind was made to my Churchwarden who, in the
necessary absence of their Minister, attended them to church and was present
during the whole service. How far their astonishment was aroused or their
attention distracted by the sight of a Chancel the walls of which were hung

10
" you will give me the information I ought to receive fearlessly and
" honestly, I beg to enclose to you a letter to the Churchwardens of
" Grove which I will beg you to deliver to them and to see that the
" answers are given to it clearly and properly. If you are able to add
" any further information I shall be much obliged to you if you will
"yourself communicate it to me. " I am, dear Sir,
" Most sincerely yours,
"S. OXON."
"Mr. Caudwell."
My Lord, I have stated, in my former letter, that of the _ an
swers given by the Churchwardens to your Lordship's inquiries
under the superintendence of Mr. Caudwell, I know nothing ; I
purposely avoided any information of the kind : but this I do know,
that the Churchwardens refused to move at all in the matter " if
Mr. Bricknell was to be kept in the dark," or to answer the com
munication submitted to them through Mr. Caudwell until I had
seen it. I know too that they made no secret of the declaration
that during the time they have held the office of Churchwarden — a
period of nearly twenty years — they never heard a complaint on any
one of the points to which your Lordship's inquiries referred.
3. Your Lordship " declines corresponding with a Clergyman who
can address his Bishop in the newspapers in the language which I
employed" when I ventured to call your attention in November last,
to the consecration by your Lordship of " several stone altars even in
Cemetery Chapels in your Diocese."
My Lord, no disrespect, either to yourself or to the office which
you hold, was intended by "the language employed" in the letters
to which you refer. Those letters contained a simple statement of
facts, the importance of which excited very considerable attention far
beyond the limits of your Lordship's Didteese, while the anonymous
attempt which was made to disprove them tended only the more
fully to establish their truth.
But, my Lord, in declining, upon this ground, to answer my appeal
of the 7th instant, your Lordship must surely have forgotten that
some months after the publication of the Letters in question and the
perusal of them by your Lordship, I received from you a long com
munication, written with your own hand: and it is painful, my
Lord, to be obliged to infer — as I cannot but do from your instruc
tions to Mr. Burder — that "the language employed by me in the
newspapers," and which now forms the plea for your Lordship's
silence, was in truth the real cause of that " most solemn admonition,"
the ostensible grounds of which you have declined to investigate.
_ So far, my Lord, as I can discover what those grounds are, I dis
tinctly deny their truth.
It is most untrue that I "left John Symonds to die without the
spiritual offices he had sought from me."
What " imputations touching the money subscribed for the Coal
Club" — established by myself for thebenent of my poor Parishioners
at Grove, and to which — with the exception of one of the principal
non-resident landed proprietors, I am the largest contributor, — may
have been conveyed to your Lordship, it is impossible for me to say.
I have already reminded you that no such " imputations" whatever are
with Mack cloth, and by the novelty of much which they must have witnessed
in Wantage Church, I will not attempt to determine : such effects, it is
well known, are but too frequently complained of by persons of maturer age.

11
contained in the original letter of Mr. Caudwell lo myself, from a
copy of which, transmitted by the writer, to your Lordship, you profess
to have derived them !* I cannot therefore but conclude that those
" imputations" must have formed part of that "further information"
which, in your private note to Mr. Caudwell, you request him, " if
able," to communicate, and that Mr. Caudwell — flattered by being
made the medium of your Lordship's inquiries, and anxious, to the
best of his ability to meet your wishes, — must, — in the absence of
any more important " information," — have retailed to your Lordship
a report, the author of which I had no difficulty in recognising,
while of its character and truth I leave your Lordship to form your
own opinion from the following correspondence.
" Sir, " Eynsham Vicarage, Jan. 18, 1851.
" I have been much surprised at hearing it asserted
"that you complained last year of having been kept out of your
" money for the coal purchased for the Poor of Grove. Knowing
" that you never had the slightest ground for such a complaint, I
" cannot bring myself to believe that you made it, and therefore feel
" no hesitation in requesting that you will oblige me with a written
" assurance to that effect. " I am, Sir,
"Yours faithfully,
" W. S. BRICKNELL."
"Mr. Plumbe, Coal-merchant, Wantage."

" Rev. Sir, " Wantage, Jan. 20, 1851.
" In reply to yours this morning received, I have
" to say that I never complained of your having kept me out of my
" money for the Coal supplied to the Poor of Grove last year ; and
" how could I do so when I see the coal was supplied on the 20th of
"February : on the 11th of March I sent you the account, and on
" the 16th the same was settled. " I am, Rev. Sir,
" Your obedient servant,
"JOHN PLUMBE."
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell, Eynsham Vicarage."
And now, my Lord, I trust that I have said enough to answer the
end which I have in view. At the time when your Lordship's
influence was exerted to suppress the Meetings of the Church
Missionary Society, which for a period of more than eleven years
had been held in Wantage for the convenience of the surrounding
neighbourhood, and which, with other " Works of Christian Charity,"
owed their origin in great measure to "the pious zeal of the excellent
Provost of Worcester," — you were pleased to say that " from what
" you knew of my principles and had seen of my conduct you could
" not doubt but that I should readily submit myself to the ' Godly
" Judgment' of my Bishop." My Lord, I hold still the same "prin-
* " The letter of Mr. Caudwell (of which he has transmitted me a copy)
mentions some cases of Neglect and Scandal, e.g. the leaving John Symonds to
die without the Spiritual offices he had sought from you, the imputations
touching the money subscribed for the Coal Club, &c."— Vid. sup., Letter 1, p. I.

12
11 ciples," and endeavour to pursue tie same line of " conduct." To
the " Godly Judgment of my Bishop" I shall ever be most ready to
submit ; but that Judgment I have sought in vain ; and deeply as
I regret the course which your Lordship has compelled me to take,
I owe it to myself and to my Clerical Brethren in your Lordship's
Diocese, not to shrink from its adoption.
My Lord, no Clergyman's character is safe, if it is to be assailed,
as mine has been, with impunity ; if a system of espionage is to be
set up by his Diocesan, and he is to be condemned, unheard, upon
charges clandestinely obtained, charges which are not even specified
much less investigated.
Of such a system, my Lord, the present case affords neither the
first, nor the second, nor the third example which has fallen under
my own immediate observation ; a system of which it may well be
said that it is "odious and intolerable, often available for bad or
malicious motives, wholly inadequate to any good or useful
purpose." Nor is the mischief of such a system confined, my Lord, to the
Clergy alone. The Churchwardens — for it embraces also the Lay
officers of the Church — will not be made more zealous or more
efficient in the discharge of their important duties by the uncom
fortable suspicion that persons wholly unauthorised to intermeddle,
are on the watch to see and report in what manner they perform
those duties. Misgivings and distrust, not to speak of more un
kindly feelings, will be necessarily engendered : " the attached Laity
of our Church" may thus indeed "be placed in opposition to their
Minister" and to each other ; while, worse than all, my Lord, the
" most solemn admonitions" of those whose "lightest word" should
be " heavy," will soon come to be regarded as things of nought, if
based on allegations into whioh no investigation is allowed, and of
the truth of which no proof is supplied.
My Lord, I quote your own sentiments and language* when I add,
" Such accusations ought not to be advanced by those who are not pre-
" pared to prove them, because, if incapable of proof, they are nothing
" better than slanderous calumnies."
I am, my Lord,
Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
W. S. BRICKNELL.
The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
* Letter ofthe Bishop of Oxford to Mr. Alderman Sadler, Dec. 5, 1850.

^% The publication of the foregoing Correspondence has been delayed by
the postponement of the Bishop's Visitation.
Eynsham Vicarage, Nov. \5th, 1851.

(copy.)

Ktt Xfyt ffit&WtK ofthe Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106,
Sect. 83, and otherwise-, and of An Inquiry touching
the Arrears of Stipend claimed to he due from the
Reverend William Sintcox Bricknell, Perpetual
Curate of Grove, in the County of BerJts, and
Diocese of Oxford, to the Reverend James Stewart
Gordon Cranmer, the Licensed Stipendiary Curate
of Grove, aforesaid, as is alleged ; j^rclJ in WlUttt to
a Monition under the hand and seal of Samuel, by
Divine permission, Lord Bishop of Oxford, served
upon the said William Simcox Bricknell on the
sixteenth day of December, one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-six.
*&$£ g*ffftia&tt of the said William Simcox
Bricknell, taken and made on oath before me, the
undersigned, John Winston Spencer Churchill,
Marquess of Blandford, one of Her Majesty s
Justices of the Peace for the County of Oxford,
this fifteenth day of January, one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-seven, at Hensington, in the said
County.
tJTfjtjSi 3©£))01t£ntj in answer to the Monition so served
as aforesaid, and in return to the same, pursuant to the
provisions ofthe said Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, section 112,
saith as follows : —
Cnfjat in the year 1832, I, .this Deponent, became the first
resident Minister of the Hamlet of Grove, in the Parish of
Wantage, in the County of Berks, and in the peculiar Jurisdic-
B

tion ofthe Dean of Salisbury. That the said peculiar Jurisdic
tion of the said Dean was, subsequently, merged in the Diocese
of Oxford ; and the said Hamlet of Grove, being detached from
the Parish of Wantage, was formed into a separate Incumbency.
That on the 17th of December, 1836, I was instituted to the
said Incumbency of Grove, as Perpetual Curate thereof, on
the presentation of the Honorable and Very Reverend the Dean
of Windsor, the then Patron of the same, as Vicar of Wantage.
That on the 2nd of June, 1845,1 was inducted to the Vicarage
of Eynsham, in the County and Diocese of Oxford. That I
retained, and continue to retain, the Incumbency of Grove,
with the said Vicarage of Eynsham, under a Dispensation
granted by the Most Reverend the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and by virtue of the provisions contained in Statute 1 and 2
Vict. c. 106, sect. 13.
STfjflt, in December, 1 846, I nominated to my Diocesan, the
Right Reverend Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, Mr. A. B. to be my
Curate alternately, at my aforesaid Benefices of Grove and
Eynsham, under the provisions of the 88th section of the Statute
aforesaid. That, upon such nomination, the said A. B. was
ordained by the said Bishop, and licensed " to perform the office
of Stipendiary Curate interchangeably in the Parish Churches
of Grove and Eynsham." That the following instruction was
added to the Commission for the Licence of the said A. B. as
such Curate, by Mr. Burder, the Bishop's Secretary, " To be
licensed alternately, the Incumbent is resident."
finrjat the said A. B., having officiated as my Curate for two
years, resigned the said Curacy, in consequence of his marriage,
in January, 1849. That I thereupon nominated as my Curate,
the Rev. C. D., who was admitted, by the said Bishop, on such
my nomination, to Priest's orders, and licensed " to perform
" the office of Stipendiary Curate interchangeably in the Parish
" Churches of Grove and Eynsham." That immediately after the
ordination of the said C, D. by the Bishop, as aforesaid, I was
unexpectedly called upon to consent, and did, at great personal
inconvenience, consent to the resignation of my said Curacy by
the said C. D. at the written request and solicitation of the said
Bishop himself, by whom I was urged to acquiesce in the said
resignation, " as the course of Christian kindness," and upon

the sole ground that the said C. D. had " formed another
" engagement highly advantageous to himself in income and
" neighbourhood." df)3t my Curacy of Grove and Eynsham having become
vacant under the circumstances aforesaid, by the resignation of
the said C. D., I nominated Mr. E. F. as his successor. That
the said E. F. was, upon such my nomination, ordained by the
said Bishop, and licensed " to perform the office of Sti-
" pendiary Curate of the Parish Church of Grove, and also that of
" Eynsltam," and " to reside in the Glebe House of either Benefice
" during the absence of the Incumbent therefrom." That the
said E. F. did officiate as my Curate, under such Licence, for
two years ; at the expiration of which period — to wit, on the
2nd day of March, 1853 — he resigned my said Curacy of Grove
and Eynsham, having been presented to the Living of G., in the
Diocese of Winchester.
QTtyat on the 24th day of March, 1853, being the twenty-
second day from the removal of the said E. F. from my Curacy
of Grove and Eynsham, and ten days previous to the expiration
of the period prescribed by the 75th section of Statute 1 and 2,
Vict. c. 106, I notified to my Diocesan, the Bishop of Oxford,
the resignation and removal of the said E. F. from my said
Curacy; and also my temporary appointment of a successor
to the said E. F. in the following words : — " I beg to inform
" your Lordship that Mr. E. F. has resigned my Curacy, and
" that the Rev. J. S. G. Cranmer has undertaken the duty for
" six months, on the terms sanctioned by your Lordship in the
" case of my two former Curates." That to this notification I
received the following reply from Mr. Burder, the Bishop's
Secretary: — " 29th March, 1853  I am directed by the Bishop
" of Oxford to inform you that his Lordship will be glad to
" receive regular Testimonials, countersigned from his last
" Diocese, of the Rev. J- S. G. Cranmer, before he can be
" allowed to officiate in his Lordship's Diocese." That I did,
by return of post, forward to Mr. Burder such Testimonials as
aforesaid, signed by three beneficed Clergymen in the Diocese
of Peterborough, and countersigned by their Diocesan. That
the receipt of such Testimonials was duly acknowledged to me
by Mr. Burder. That no further communication having been
b2

received from the said Bishop, or bis Secretary, the said J. S. G.
Cranmer continued to perform his ecclesiastical duties as " a
" Curate approved by the Bishop."
3TI)at not long after the said J. S. G. Cranmer bad entered
upon his duties as such temporary Curate as aforesaid, I had
cause to suspect, and subsequently became fully satisfied, upon
grounds which may be gathered from the correspondence
marked " A," and appended to this Affidavit, as well as for
various other just and sufficient reasons, that it would not be
possible for me, with advantage to my Parishioners or comfort
to myself, to enter into any further engagement with the said
J. S. G. Cranmer, beyond the period of six months, for which
period I bad engaged his services as aforesaid.
STfjflt, on the 25th day of May, 1 853, when the said J. S. G.
Cranmer had, for more than two months, been engaged in the
duties of the Curacy aforesaid, without interruption, I was sud
denly required by the Bishop to nominate the said Rev. J. S. G.
Cranmer immediately as my Curate, in order that he might be
licensed as such by the said Bishop. That, in answer to this
requirement, on the part of the Bishop, I did, on the 30th of
May, 1853, write to the said Bishop, reminding him that I had,
with his knowledge and sanction, as aforesaid, temporarily
engaged the said J. S. G. Cranmer to undertake my duty for
six months ; and that the said J. S. G. Cranmer bad, with the
approval of the said Bishop, undertaken the same accordingly,
and had been in the discharge of the said duty for a period of
more than two months from the time of his said engagement ;
and further stating that the refusal of the said Bishop to allow
Mr. Cranmer to officiate any longer without a licence, bad thus
taken me altogether by surprise, and that I was unprepared at
that moment to nominafe that gentleman to my Curacy. That to
the above communication of May 30th, 1 853, 1 received no reply-
whatever either from the Bishop himself or from his Secretary'
STIjat, on the 10th day of June, 1853, the said J. S. G.
Cranmer was licensed by the Bishop of Oxford, without my
nomination, and against my desire— as intimated to the said
Bishop in my letter of May 30, 1 853 — to the sole Curacy of Grove,
" with the yearly stipend of fifty pounds, and the use of the
" Parsonage House."

STjJat at tlie time when the said Licence was granted as afore*
said, to wit, on the 10th day of June, 1853, " a period of four
" months" from the removal of the aforesaid E. F., my last Curate,
had not elapsed ; but That more than three weeks of the said
period remained still unexpired. That it was competent to
me, at any time previous to the expiration of the aforesaid
period of four months, to nominate a Curate to the said Bishop;
failing which nomination, within the said period, but not otherwise,
the Bishop would have been authorised, under the 75th section
•of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, " to appoint and license a proper
*' Curate with such salary as is by the said Statute allowed and
"" directed." ^Tfjflt subsequent to the granting of his Licence of June 10,
1853, to the said J. S. G. Cranmer by the said Bishop, and pre
vious to the expiration of the term of six months, for which
;term I had engaged the services of the said J. S. G. Cranmer as
aforesaid — to wit, On the 23rd day of August, 1853 — I received
'from Mr. Burder, tbe Secretary of the said Bishop, the follow
ing communication : — " The Bishop of Oxford is very anxious
" that you should forthwith nominate Mr. Cranmer to the Curacy
" of Grove and Eynsham, and that I should even follow up this
" by proceedings. I shall therefore be obliged if you will at
" once send me a nomination, and thus render my putting you
" to expence unnecessary." That the said J. S. G. Cranmer
having been already, and as I believe, illegally, appointed
and licensed, without my nomination, and against my consent,
to the Curacy of Grove, and I, this Deponent, having no inten
tion to be a voluntary party to any engagement of the said
J. S. G. Cranmer, beyond the period of six months as herein
before mentioned, I did not comply with the request contained
in the above communication from Mr. Burder, nor give any such
nomination as therein required, nor was my omission to do so
" followed up," as intimated therein, by any " proceedings" or
"expence.'' Wtfdt from and after the Licence granted as aforesaid to the
said J. S. G. Cranmer, I did constantly decline to recognise the
said J. S. G. Cranmer as my lawfully-constituted Stipendiary
Curate, and did, from time to time, urge upon the said J. S. G-
-Cranmer the expediency of relinquishing an Appointment which

it was obvious he could not retain to our mutual comfort and
satisfaction. That the said J. S. G. Cranmer declined to listen
to any such proposals on my part, although I offered to consult
his convenience to the utmost of my power, if he would adopt
them. That the said J. S. G. Cranmer having repeatedly
expressed to me his determination to continue in the Curacy
of Grove, and great and increasing complaints having been
made to me as to the state of my said Parish, I communicated
to the said J. S. G. Cranmer my determination to withhold the
payment of the stipend claimed by the said J. S. G. Cranmer,
unless he would engage to resign the Curacy of Grove " within a
" reasonable time," which time, I expressed myself " willing to
" extend beyond the period allowed by law for a notice from an
" Incumbent to his Curate." That in communicating to the
said J. S. G. Cranmer my determination as aforesaid, I wrote to
bim further as follows : — " I am fully satisfied that the adoption
" of such a course is most expedient both on your own account,
" on mine, and on that of my Parishioners ; and, therefore, I can
" only add that if you obj ect to come to an arrangement upon
" the terms which I propose, I must leave you to appeal to the
" Bishop, and thus bring the whole circumstances of the case
" under his Lordship's consideration." That I enclosed to the
Bishop a copy ofthe above letter to the said J. S. G. Cranmer,
with the following remarks : — " Your Lordship is aware that I
" have never acquiesced in Mr. Cranmer's permanent appoint-
" ment as Curate of Grove ; and I am prepared to communicate
" to your Lordship reasons which I am sure will fully satisfy you
" that I am right in endeavouring to induce him to resign the
" position which he now occupies."
STfjat the said J. S. G. Cranmer, having subsequently appealed
to the Bishop against my non-payment of his stipend, the said
Bishop, without asking for the reasons above referred to, or
making any inquiry, either of myself or of the Churchwardens,
into the state of my said Parish of Grove, intimated to me,
through his Secretary, that he " had no alternative but to hear the
" case summarily, and enforce payment under the 83rd section of
" the 1st and 2nd Vict. c. 106." That finding that a Citation
was already prepared requiring my attendance before the
Bishop within seven days, in order that the case might be

summarily disposed of, as intimated by the said Bishop ; and
having failed to obtain, at the hands of the said Bishop, that
investigation into the state of my Parish of Grove, which I had
hoped to secure ; and being unwell at the time, and on the point
of leaving home for a few weeks, I was induced to pay the
amount of stipend alleged to be due to the said J. S. G.
Cranmer, and did pay the same under protest. That, having
so paid the amount of stipend as aforesaid, I did, immediately
upon my return home, write a letter to the Bishop of Oxford,
of which the following is a copy : —
" Eynsham Vicarage, Sept. 22, 1855.
" My Lord, — The very unsatisfactory state of my Parish of
"Grove, and my own future plans with respect to it, induced
" me, some time since, to express to Mr. Cranmer my wish
" that he should seek for himself some other sphere of duty.
" I have since had occasion to inform him that, so soon as I
" could complete my arrangements, it was my intention to give
" him a formal notice to resign my Curacy at the expiration of
" six months ; hoping, by so early an intimation of my purpose,
" to put him to as little inconvenience as possible.
" Being now prepared to give the required notice, I have to
" request your Lordship's permission, in writing, to the course
" which I propose to take, in pursuance of the provisions of
" 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sect. 95. I am, my Lord, your Lord-
" ship's faithful servant, W. S. Bricknell."
5Tf)flt to the foregoing application I received from the said
Bishop, through his Secretary, the following reply, under date
of September 25, 1855 : — " I am desired by the Bishop of
" Oxford to say that his Lordship deems the continual changes
" which have taken place in your Curates at Grove to be exceed-
" ingly prejudicial to the spiritual interests ofthe inhabitants;
" and that, on that account, he is unable to consent to the
«' removal of Mr. Cranmer unless some satisfactory reasons were
" given for such removal. That on the contrary, the Bishop
" considers it to be due to Mr. Cranmer, who has, to the best
" ofthe Bishop's belief, discharged faithfully his duty, that he,
" being a poor man, should not be removed by a non-resident
" Incumbent — at great inconvenience and expence to Mr.

8
" Cranmer — unless some direct reason for such removal were
" alleged. That the Bishop apprehends that one reason why
'' his assent to such a notice is required is, that he may be able
'' to protect his poorer Brethren in the Ministry from arbi*
" trary removal."
JJTlfjat, in answer to this communication, I addressed a letter
to the said Bishop, wherein I called his attention to the fact
that, from the time when the Church at Grove was built, I was
myself in constant residence at Grove for a period of thirteen
years ; that three changes only had since occurred in my
Curates ; of which changes one was not only assented to, but
urged upon me, to my great inconvenience, by ihe said Bishop
" himself, as the course of Christian kindness," on the sole plea
that the said Curate "had formed another engagement highly
" advantageous lo himself in income and neighbourhood," — (with
out any intimation on the part of the said Bishop, of consideration
for the convenience of the said Incumbent, or for '* the spiritual
" interests ofthe inhabitants," to which " the continual changes"
alleged to " have taken place in my Curates at Grove," were
now deemed by the said Bishop to be so " exceedingly pre-
" judicial.") That I proceeded in the said Letter to detail
to the said Bishop the circumstances under which, without
my nomination, and against my consent, the said J. S. G.
Cranmer had been licensed by the said Bishop to the
Curacy of Grove, which Curacy I was anxious the said J. S. G.
Cranmer should resign, "for the sake ofthe spiritual interests of
" the people ;" — and concluded with expressing my hope that the
said Bishop " upon further consideration, would not continue to
" urge the objection which he had raised against the removal of
" Mr. Cranmer, in opposition to the wishes expressed" by me,
<' and to the plans which" I was " anxious to carry out, for the
" advantage, as I believed, and not to the prejudice of my
" people." That to the foregoing representation I received
from the Bishop, through his Secretary, on the 5th day of Octo
ber, 1855, the following reply: — "I am instructed by his Lord-
" ship to inform you that he sees in your statement of the 28th
" ultimo, no reason for altering the decision I have already
" announced to you that the Bishop refuses his assent to your
" proposed removal of the Rev. Mr. Cranmer from the Curacy

" of Grove. On the contrary, the Bishop has felt it to be his
" duty to raise Mr. Cranmer's stipend to seventy-Jive pounds a
" year, and has altered his Licence accordingly, by an endorse-
" ment dated the 29tA ultimo.'"
JHrjat upon receipt of the above communication from the
Bishop, through his Secretary, I addressed to the said Bishop
another letter, whereof the following is a copy : —
" My Lord,— I regret to find, from your Lordship's com-
" munication of the 4th instant, transmitted through Mr.
" Davenport, that you formally ' refuse your assent to my
" 'removal of Mr. Cranmer from the Curacy of Grove.' I
" have already assured your Lordship that I believe the pro-
" posed change to be necessary 'for the sake of the spiritual
" ' interests of my Parishioners ;' and I certainly did hope that
" such an assurance would have led to some inquiry on your
" Lordship's part, as to the grounds upon which it is founded.
" I desire, my Lord, no harsh nor unreasonable measures ; but,
" while the Statute under which I have made my application to
" your Lordship, ' protects your poorer Brethren in the Ministry
" ' from arbitrary removal,' it gives, as you are aware, an
" equal protection to Incumbents situated as I am, in the privi-
" lege of an appeal to a higher jurisdiction. Of that privilege
" I now beg respectfully to inform your Lordship that it is my
" full intention, as I believe it to be my bounden duty, to avail
" myself. Your Lordship intimated, in a former letter, that
" ' Mr. Cranmer being a poor man, his removal would be the
" ' cause of great inconvenience and expence.' Painful, my
" Lord, as such a result might be, and anxious as I should feel,
" if possible, to avoid it, it is a matter which could have little
" weight, under any circumstances, against those far higher
" considerations, which will, as I am persuaded, more than
" justify the course which I am anxious to adopt. I feel it right,
" however, to add upon this point, that only a few days since, I
" was told by Mr. Cranmer, in the presence of a most respect-
" able inhabitant of Grove, that he is 'wholly independent of my
" 'paltry Curacy, and should, in all probability, undertake no
" 'further ministerial duty in the event of his leaving Grove.' "
STfjflt in pursuance of the intimation given in the above
letter, and in accordance with the provisions of Statute 1 and 2

10
Vict. c. 106, sect. 95, 1 did, within a month from the refusal of
the Bishop of Oxford to allow the removal of the said J. S. G.
Cranmer from my Curacy of Grove, to wit, on the 1st day of
November, 1855, appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury
against the said refusal of the said Bishop. That the Arch
bishop having " considered my appeal," was of opinion that it
" was not a case in which" he had " any authority to interfere,
" inasmuch as the appeal given by 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sect.
" 95, relates only to Incumbents ' resident or desiring to reside ;'
" and inasmuch as section 88 ofthe said Statute makes provision
*' for the case of an Incumbent serving two Benefices inter-
" changeably with his Curate, and residing on each for certain
" proportions of the year, which had not been the practice with
" myself and the said J. S. G. Cranmer ;" and further, inasmuch
as " in my application to the Bishop, I had not stated that I
" was desirous of taking up" my " residence at Grove, but
" merely that" I was " dissatisfied with Mr. Cranmer's
" services." STfjat being precluded from interchangeable residence on my
Benefices of Grove and Eynsham, by the Licence granted, as
aforesaid, on the 10th of June, 1853, to the said J. S. G.
Cranmer, as Curate of the Parish of Grove alone; and not
being in a position to take up my permanent residence on the
said Benefice of Grove ; and being thus deprived of the benefit
of an appeal to the Archbishop, under the provisions of the
Statute aforesaid ; and being desirous of proving to my Parish
ioners that I had done all in my power to remedy the deplorable
condition of my said Parish of Grove in spiritual matters, and
that I was not in any way responsible for the same, — I had no
resource left to me but to adopt such measures as should
ultimately have the effect of obtaining a formal decision upon
questions of great importance, not only to myself individually,
but to the Beneficed Clergy of the Church of England in
general, by putting to the test the legality of the Appointment
under the circumstances aforesaid, of the said J. S. G. Cranmer
to the Curacy of Grove, by the Bishop of Oxford, and the
validity of the Licence granted to him, as such Curate, by thie
said Bishop, on the 10th day of June, 1853.
ULtf&t to this end I refused any longer to pay to the said J. S. G.

11
Cranmer the stipend assigned to him by the said Licence. That
I was, in consequence of such refusal, cited to appear before the
said Bishop of Oxford, on the 1st day of December, 1856, " to
" shew cause why such stipend should not be paid and satisfied."
That I did duly appear before the said Bishop in answer to the
said Citation on the 1st day of December aforesaid, at the office
of the Registrar of the Diocese of Oxford, and did then and
there sign, and deliver to the said Bishop, a written document
shewing cause as aforesaid, of which document a copy, marked
" B," is appended to this Affidavit.
WtfAt on the said 1st day of December, 18,5<£at the time
and place above-mentioned, a certain Complaint, in writing, of
the said J. S. G. Cranmer, was put in, taken and made on oath,
before the said Bishop, and the Worshipful Robert Joseph
Phillimore, Doctor of Civil Law, the Chancellor of the Diocese
of Oxford, then and there assisting the said Bishop. That of
the allegations contained in the said Complaint I had no know
ledge until the same was put in and read on the occasion
aforesaid. That of the incorrectness of all the important
allegations contained in the said Complaint, I did nevertheless
then and there, as I believe, produce to the said Bishop suffi
cient evidence and proof. That upon such evidence and proof,
then and there so produced by me, and upon the grounds stated
and set forth in the written document shewing cause as afore
said, and signed and delivered to the said Bishop by me as
hereinbefore mentioned, / did then and there respectfully
impugn and deny the authority of the said Bishop to appoint
the said J. S. G. Cranmer to my Curacy of Grove as aforesaid,
without my consent and nomination, and also the validity of the
Licence granted by the said Bishop to the said J. S. G, Cranmer
as such Curate.
JTIjilt notwithstanding such evidence and proof, then and
there produced, and such grounds then and there stated
and set forth by me as aforesaid, the said Bishop did, at the
time and place aforesaid, determine that the Appointment
of the said J. S. G. Cranmer, by himself the said Bishop,
as aforesaid, was a legal Appointment, and that the Licence
granted by himself the said Bishop, as aforesaid, was a valid
Licence ; and the said Bishop did then and there " adjudge"
that the amount of stipend alleged to be due from me to the said

12
J. S. G. Cranmer, under the said Appointment and Licence,
" was and is due, and owing from me ;" and the said Bishop did
then and there " order and determine that the said amount
" should be forthwith paid by me to the said J. S. G.
" Cranmer." 2Tt)at upon the aforesaid Adjudication, Order, and Determina
tion being so given by the said Bishop, I forthwith respectfully
stated to the said Bishop, that it was not my intention to comply
with his said Order, and that in the event of his Adjudication
being followed by a Monition, I should expect that the due period
prescribed by law should be allowed to me in order to make such
return to the said Monition by Affidavit or otherwise, as I might
see fit. That I was thereupon informed by the said Chancellor
that I was "greatly mistaken if I supposed that the proceedings
" already taken in the Matter were not final, or that they could be
" reopened in any way." That notwithstanding this decision by
the Chancellor, I nevertheless, persisted in my demand, and
referred, in support thereof, to the 112th section of Statute 1
and 2 Vict. c. 106, under which Statute the said proceedings
were taken, and whereby it is enacted " that in all cases in which
" proceedings under this Act are directed to be by Monition and
" Sequestration, such Monition shall issue under the hand and seal
" ofthe Bishop, and shall be served personally upon the spiritual
" person therein named, or to whom it shall be directed ; and it
" shall be competent lo the party monished to shew cause by Affidavit
" or otherwise, as the case may require, why a Sequestration should
" not issue according to the tenor cf such Monition." That on the
16th day of December, 1856, I was served with a Monition
under the hand and seal of the said Bishop, setting forth that
the truth of all the allegations contained in the aforesaid
Complaint of the said J. S. G. Cranmer had been " made to
appear" to the said Bishop, and " monishing and directing
" me to pay to the said J. S. G. Cranmer the amount of stipend
" alleged to be due to him as aforesaid, within thirty days from
" the service of such Monition, on pain of being proceeded
" against by the said Bishop, as by the Statutes in such case
" made and provided, the said Bishop is empowered to proceed ;"
and further requiring me " to make a return to tlie said Monition
" within thirty days from the service thereof."
Cfjat immediately after the Adjudication by the said Bishop

13
as aforesaid, I applied to the Secretary of the said Bishop for a
copy of the minutes taken at the Hearing, as aforesaid, before
the said Bishop, on the 1st day of December, 1856. That in
reply to such application I was furnished with a copy of the
Complaint and Adjudication, but of nothing more. That on the
5th day of December, 1856, 1 wrote, in consequence, as follows,
to the said Bishop : —
" My Lord, I have received from Mr. Davenport, your
" Lordship's Secretary, a transcript of the Complaint exhibited
" before your Lordship, on Monday, the 1st inst., by the Rev.
" J. S. G. Cranmer, and of your Lordship's Adjudication thereon,
" being copies of a portion ofthe proceedings taken before your
" Lordship in the above Matter, upon that occasion.
" It will be in your Lordship's recollection that there was
" added to the Adjudication of your Lordship then and there
" delivered, on your Lordship's behalf, by the Worshipful the
" Chancellor of the Diocese, an offer, — of which your Secretary,
" Mr. Davenport, was directed to make a minute, — to the effect
" that your Lordship was ready to fix the amount of Mr.
" Cranmer's stipend for the future, at a sum which should
" obviate the grievance of which I complained as the conse^.
" quence ofhis present stipend: and that, in reply to this, offer,
" I reminded your Lordship that my complaint related to what
" had been already done, and that my acquiescence in your
" Lordship's proposal, would be a virtual abandonment, on my
" part, of every point for which I was contending.
" I have now, my Lord, to request that your Lordship will
" furnish me, through your Secretary, with a copy of the minute
" so made by Mr. Davenport, ofthe offer to which I have just
" alluded, and of my reply to it : and also with a copy of the
'' grounds, as set forth by the Chancellor, in delivering your
" Lordship's Adjudication, upon which your Lordship overruled
" the several points raised by me in answer to Mr. Cranmer's
" allegations, and given in by me to your Lordship, in writing,
" upon the occasion in question.
"It will also be in your Lordship's recollection — First, — That
" upon my replying, as above stated, to the offer made by your
" Lordship, through the Chancellor, your Lordship — speaking
"for yourself — proposed to me this further offer — requesting

14
" Mr. Davenport, at the same time, to take notice of it — viz.,
" that, upon my specifying the amount of Rates, Taxes, and
" other Expences to which I considered myself already unjustly
" subjected by the stipend assigned to Mr. Cranmer, your
" Lordship was willing to rectify the past grievance, by deduct-
" ing such amount from Mr.. Cranmer's claim ; Secondly, — That
" in reply to this offer, I observed that the amount of Mr.
" Cranmer's claim having been formally settled by the Adjudica-
" tion already made, your Lordship's second offer came too late,
" even supposing that it could have removed the grievances of
" which I had to complain ; and, Thirdly, — That in this opinion
" the Chancellor expressed to your Lordship his concurrence,
" advising, however, in opposition to my request, as well as to
" your Lordship's previous direction to your Secretary, that no
" minute should be made either of this your Lordship's second
" offer, or of my reply to it !
" Being therefore thus precluded, by this decision of the
" Chancellor, from obtaining that evidence of your Lordship's
" second offer, which I might otherwise have procured, / take
" this means of calling the attention, both of your Lordship and
" of Mr. Davenport, to the fact that the circumstances of the
" case were'as above related.
" I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W. S. Bricknell."
" The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford, by the hand of
" J. M. Davenport, Esq., his Lordship's Secretary."
That to the foregoing letter I received from Mr. Davenport
the following reply : — " I am desired by the Bishop of Oxford
« to inform you, in reply to your letter of the 5th instant, that
" you are not entitled to a copy of any minutes or proceedings
" beyond those which have been forwarded to you."
STtjat having obtained, as hereinbefore mentioned, a copy of
the Complaint of the said J. S. G. Cranmer, taken and made
before the said Bishop of Oxford, on the 1st day of December,
1856, I, this Deponent, have further examined the allegations
contained in the same, the truth of all which allegations is stated
in the Monition served, as aforesaid, on this Deponent, to " have
been made to appear to the said Bishop ;" and, —

15
2Tf)at U)!)Crfa0 in the said Complaint the said J. S. G.
Cranmer, upon his oath, saith as follows :— " After I had acted
" as Curate a little time, I applied to Mr. Bricknell to know if
" he had transmitted to the Bishop of Oxford the nomination of
" me, as such Curate, in order to my receiving his Lordship's
" Licence : Mr. Bricknell replied in the negative, and he subse-
" quently neglected to nominate me ;"
KTOiD Ut tn's Deponent, say, in answer to the above alle
gation, and to the said Monition so served on this Deponent
as aforesaid, and in return to the same : — That no such appli
cation as that just recited, nor any application ofthe kind was
ever, at any time, made to me by the said J. S. G. Cranmer,
previous to the granting of the aforesaid Licence to him the said
J. S. G. Cranmer, by the Bishop of Oxford, on the 10th day of
June, 1853. That I heard nothing whatever, in any way or
form, from the said J. S. G. Cranmer, on the subject of any
such Licence, until I received from him, to my surprise, the
following incidental allusion to it in a letter dated May 30,
1853, a copy of which is appended to this Affidavit: — "I shall
'' have to call on Mr. Butler to execute a little business with
" regard to my Licence : so you see there are times when we must
" meet." &ttfj tofjertaa by the 75th section of Statute 1 and 2 Vict.
c. 106, it is enacted " that if any spiritual person holding any
" Benefice, who shall not actually reside thereon nine months in
" each year .... shall, for the period of four months,
" after the death, resignation, or removal of a Curate, neglect
" to nominate to the Bishop a proper Curate ; in every such case
" the Bishop is hereby authorised to appoint and license a
" proper Curate, with such salary as is by this act allowed and
" directed, to serve the Church or Chapel of the Benefice in
" respect of which sucb neglect or default shall have oc
curred ;" 'UltiJ 4lrt)erca0 in the aforesaid Complaint of the said
J. S. G. Cranmer, it is further stated on oath by the said J. S.
G. Cranmer, that — " on the tenth day of June, 1853, more
" than four months had elapsed after the resignation and removal
" of the Rev. E. F., who immediately preceded me, the said
" J. S. G. Cranmer, as the Curate of Grove aforesaid ;"
NOil) E» this Deponent, say, in answer to this allegation,

16
and to the said Monition so served as aforesaid, and in
return to the same, — That the removal of the said Rev. E. F,
from my Curacy, took place on the second day of March, 1853 ;
That, consequently, three months and seven days only, and not
" more than four months," as afore alleged, had elapsed on the
said tenth day of June, 1853, from the time of the removal of
the said Rev. E. F.
SJnD tDfjCf £30, by the 75 th section ofthe Statute aforesaid,
it is further enacted " that if any spiritual person holding any
" Benefice who shall not actually reside there nine months in
" each year . . . shall, for a period exceeding three months
" altogether, or to be accounted at several times in the course of
" any one year, absent himself from his Benefice without leaving
" a Curate or Curates duly licensed or approved by the Bishop ;
" in every such case the Bishop is hereby authorised to appoint
" and license a proper Curate with such salary as is by this Act
" allowed and directed, to serve the Church or Chapel of the
" Benefice in respect of which such neglect or default shall
" have occurred ; 'SltlQ* toljf vca& in the aforesaid Complaint of
the said J. S. G. Cranmer, it, is further stated on oath, by the
said J. S. G. Cranmer, that — " On the 10th day of June, 1853,
the said " William Simcox Bricknell had, for a period exceeding
" three months, in the course of the then year, absented himself
"from his Benefice of Grove without leaving a Curate duly
" licensed or approved by the Bishop;"
NijfcD E> this Deponent, say in answer to this allegation,
and to the Monition so served as aforesaid, and in return
to the same : — That from the first day of January, 1853, to the
second day of March, in the same year, the Rev. E. F. was
residing at Grove as my duly licensed interchangeable Curate.
That the removal of the said E. F. from the said Curacy took
place as aforesaid, on the second day of March, 1853. That
from and after the said second day of March, I did perform, in
person, all the duties of the said Parish of Grove, until the
fifteenth day of the said month : and That from the said last-
mentioned day unto the tenth day of June then next ensuing —
on which day the said J. S. G. Cranmer was licensed to the
said Curacy of Grove, by the Bishop, without my nomination,—
"a period exceeding three calendar months" had not elapsed

17
as afore alleged, but only two calendar months and twenty-five
days. That on the 24th day of March, 1853, I did, as herein
before mentioned, notify to the Bishop of the Diocese, my tem
porary engagement of the said James S. G. Cranmer as my
Curate. That on the application of the said Bishop, I did, on
the 30th day of March, 1853, forward to the Bishop the testi
monials required by him the said Bishop, " before he the said
" J. S. G. Cranmer could be allowed lo officiate in his Lordship's
" Diocese." That the receipt of the said testimonials was duly
acknowledged to me by the said Bishop's Secretary. That the
said J. S. G. Cranmer was thereupon allowed to enter upon his
duties in the Curacy of Grove, and did then and there continue
to officiate, with the knowledge of the said Bishop, and without
interruption, for the space of more than two months. That
during the whole of such period the said J. S. G. Cranmer was
" a Curate duly approved by the said Bishop," within the mean
ing and intent of the 75th section of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c.
106. That such " approval" on the part of the said Bishop
was further declared and confirmed by the fact that, on the
tenth day of June following, the said J. S. G. Cranmer was
licensed by the said Bishop to the Curacy aforesaid — though
without my nomination — as one " in whose Fidelity, Morals,
" Learning, and sound Doctrine," he, the said Bishop, did
"fully confide." W%t)CVtfOVC E, this Deponent, say that it is
not true, as alleged in the Complaint aforesaid, that I had on
the 10th day of June, 1853, " absented myself from my Benefice
" of Grove aforesaid, for a period exceeding three calendar
" months, in the course of the~then year, without leaving a
" Curate duly licensed and approved by the Bishop."
®V8J t&t)eVta&, by the 98th section of Statute 1 and 2 Vict.
c. 106, it is enacted " that it shall be lawful for the Bishoplo
" license any Curate who is or shall be actually employed by
" any non-resident Incumbent of any Benefice within his Diocese,
" although no express nomination of such Curate shall have
" been made to such Bishop by the Incumbent;" £ttlO iDl)Ct£a0
in the aforesaid Complaint of the said J. S. G. Cranmer, it is
further alleged that on the 10th day of June, 1853, he, " the
" said J. S. G. Cranmer, was actually employed by the said
C

18
" William Simcox Bricknell, a non-resident Incumbent of the
" said Benefice of Grove ;"
NOti) E, this Deponent, say, in answer to this allega
tion, and to the Monition so served, as aforesaid, and in return
to the same, — That, by virtue of the provisions contained in
the 88th section of the Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, it is
competent to me, as Incumbent of two Benefices, to wit, the
Benefices of Grove and Eynsham, aforesaid, to " reside in such
" different proportions of every year as I may think fit, on one
" or other of my said Benefices, the full period specified by the
" said Act, and to employ a Curate interchangeably, from time to
" time, upon such of the said Benefices from which I may be ab-
" sent during my own actual residence upon the other thereof."
That, on the 10th day of June, 1853, and for several years then
immediately previous thereto, and directly consequent upon my
institution to the Vicarage of Eynsham, as aforesaid, I was and
had been availing myself of the privileges conferred by the
provisions contained in the 88th section of Statute 1 and 2
Vict. c. 106, as aforesaid ; and to that end did keep furnished
the Glebe House on each of my said Benefices, and did engage
and keep a servant in the same. That, in conformity with
such provisions, I did, as hereinbefore mentioned, nominate
each and every of my Curates, " to perform ecclesiastical duty
" interchangeably" with myself, " from time to time, upon such
" of the said Benefices of Grove and Eynsham, from which I
" should be absent durjng my own actual residence upon the other
" thereof." That each and every of my said Curates, previous
to the 10th day of June, 1853, had been licensed accordingly
as such interchangeable Curates, as aforesaid, by the Bishop,
under the aforesaid provisions of the said Act. That on the 24th
day of March, 1853, I did duly notify to the said Bishop, as
hereinbefore mentioned, my temporary engagement of the said
J. S. G. Cranmer, as my Curate, for six months, on the terms
sanctioned by the said Bishop, in the cases of my former Curates.
That, against such engagement, by me, of the said J. S. G.
Cranmer, on such terms, as aforesaid, no objection was at any
time made or suggested to me by the said Bishop. That the
said J. S. G. Cranmer was permitted by the said Bishop to

19
enter upon his duties as such temporary and interchangeable
Curate, as aforesaid, and to continue in the discharge of those
duties, without interruption, for a period of nearly three months.
That the nature and terms of the engagement so made by me
as aforesaid, with the said J. S. G. Cranmer, were fully under
stood and agreed to by the said J. S. G. Cranmer, upon his
entering into such engagement, as may be proved by letters
received by me from the said J. S. G. Cranmer, extracts from
which, marked " C," are appended to this Affidavit. That by
and under the arrangement made by me, as aforesaid, in con
formity with the provisions of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106,
sect. 88, I was, on the 10th day of June, 1853, legally resident
on my Benefices of Grove and Eynsham, and not, as alleged in
the Complaint aforesaid, " a non-resident Incumbent of my
" Benefice of Grove." That I was, under such circumstances,
as aforesaid, described as " resident" on each of my said Bene
fices, by the Secretary of the Bishop, in the Commission for
the Licence of a Curate appointed by me interchangeably, as
aforesaid. STfjttt t\)tttfOVt it was not competent to the said
Bishop, on the 10th day of June, 1853, under the 98th section
of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, to license the said J. S. G.
Cranmer to the Curacy of Grove, without my nomination and
against my express desire, inasmuch as I was not at the time of
the granting of such Licence a non-resident Incumbent of my
Benefice of Grove.
^IttiT E> this Deponent, do further say in answer to the last-
recited allegation contained in the said Complaint, and to the
Monition so served as aforesaid, and in return to the same, —
That admitting — what, nevertheless, I do not admit — that I
was, on the 10th day of June, 1853, a "non-resident Incumbent
" of the Benefice of Grove'' within the meaning of Statute 1 and
2 Vict. c. 106, sec. 98, as in the said Complaint of the said
J. S. G. Cranmer is alleged, I do still nevertheless aver and
maintain that the power conferred upon the said Bishop, by
the provisions contained in the said 98th section of the Statute
aforesaid, extends only to the " Licensing of any Curate actually
" employed by such non-resident Incumbent" as is therein
referred to, according to the tenor of the engagement under which
such Curate shall be so actually employed by such Incumbent, and
c2

20
not to any Appointment by such Bishop other than or at variance
with such actual employment. That the said J. S. G. Cranmer
.being, on the said 10th day of June, 1853, actually employed
by me, with the knowledge and sanction of the said Bishop,
under a temporary engagement for a limited period of six
months, upon terms the same as those upon which I had pre
viously employed my former Curates; — and no act having
been done or omitted to be done by me, and no neglect or
default committed on or before the said 10th day of June, 1853,
whereby I could be deprived of my right of nomination to my
said Curacy, or whereby, under the provisions of the 75th sect.
of the Statute aforesaid, such right of nomination would
have lapsed to or become vested in the said Bishop ; — it
was not competent to the said Bishop to license the said J.
S. G. Cranmer permanently, or to the sole Curacy of the
Benefice of Grove, and against my expressed desire ; thereby
granting to the said J. S. G. Cranmer not a Licence merely, to
officiate, which, by the 98th section of the Statute aforesaid, it
would have been lawful for the said Bishop to grant, admitting
. — what nevertheless I do not admit — that I was, on the 10th
day of June, 1853, a non-resident Incumbent within the meaning
of the said Statute — but an Appointment which was, at that time,
vested solely in myself as Incumbent of the said Benefice, and
of which the aforesaid 98th section of the said Statute says
nothing, and which it does not empower the said Bishop to
confer, and which the said Bishop was not authorised to
confer under any other provisions in the said Act contained,
and more particularly under the provisions of the 75th
section of the said Act, as I have hereinbefore shown ; and
thereby depriving me of the just rights and privileges to
which I am legally entitled, and of which I was in the
exercise and enjoyment previous to the said 10th day of June,
1853, under the aforesaid provisions of Statute 1 and 2 Vict.
c. 106, s. 88.
Qlt)tVtf0Vt E» this Deponent, say, and am prepared to prove
in answer to the said Monition, so served, as aforesaid, and in
return to the same, — That the hereinbefore cited allegations
contained in the aforesaid Complaint of the said J. S. G.
Cranmer, are not true, but are contrary to truth and to fact,

21
notwithstanding it is asserted, in the said Monition, that the truth
of the said allegations has been " made to appear" to the said
Bishop : and That inasmuch as upon the assumed truth of such
allegations as aforesaid, the said Bishop has adjudged and
determined that the Appointment of the said J. S. G. Cranmer,
as such Curate as aforesaid, by himself the said Bishop, was a
good and lawful Appointment under the hereinbefore recited
provisions of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sections 75 and 98 ;
NOtD E, this Deponent, say, That the said allegations being
untrue, the said Appointment cannot be justified by the said
provisions ofthe said Statute, or by any other provisions in the
said Statute contained, but that it is illegal and contrary to the
same. ?tllD tofjCttaS, in granting Licences to Stipendiary Curates,
the Bishop ofthe Diocese in which such Licences shall be granted
is " required" by Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 1 06, to grant such
Licences " subject to the several provisions and restrictions in the
" said Act contained ;"
NotD E» this Deponent, say, and am prepared to prove, in
answer to the Monition so served, as aforesaid, and in return
to the same, — That in granting his Licence of June 10, 1853,
to the said J. S. G. Cranmer, as aforesaid, the said Bishop of
Oxford did not observe and comply with the " provisions and
" restrictions in the said Act contained," but did grant his said
Liicence in neglect of and in opposition to the same :
JpOV tljat tDijCrca©, in the first place, by the 81st section
of the said Statute, it is enacted " that every Bishop to whom any
" application shall be made for any Licence for a Curate to
" serve for any person not duly residing upon his Benefice, shall'
" before he grant such Licence, require a statement of all the
" particulars by this Act required to be stated by any person
" applying for a Licence for non-residence /' NoiD E> this
Deponent, say, That before granting to the said J. S. G.
Cranmer his Licence ofthe 10th day of June, 1853, to serve as
Stipendiary Curate of the Parish of Grove as aforesaid, I, this
Deponent, being then, as is alleged, not duly residing there
upon, — I was not required, by the said Bishop, to furnish any
such statement ofthe particulars aforesaid, but that he, the said
Bishop, did grant his Licence to the said J. S. G. Cranmer, as

22
such Curate as aforesaid, without first requiring such statement
as is directed by the Statute, and therefore contrary to the
provisions of the same.
2? til) teJl)C££ffi0, in the second place, by the said 81st section
of the aforesaid Statute, it is further enacted " that in every case
" in which application shall be made to any Bishop for a Licence
" for any Stipendiary Curate to serve in any Benefice, whether
" the Incumbent be resident or non-resident, such Bishop shall
" also require a declaration in writing to be made and subscribed
" by the Incumbent and Curate, to the purport and effect
" that the one bona fide intends to pay, and the other bona fide
" intends to receive the whole actual stipend mentioned in such
" statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or con-
" sideration for the use of the Glebe House, and without any
" other deduction or reservation whatever ;"
!NOti) E» this Deponent say, That upon granting to the said
J. S. G. Cranmer his Licence of June 10th, 1853, as aforesaid,
no such declaration in writing as aforesaid was required by the
said Bishop, but that the said J. S. G. Cranmer was without any
such declaration licensed by the said Bishop, contrary to the
provisions of the said Statute.
&trt][ i&t)tVea8, in the third place, by the 83rd and 85th
sections of the Statute aforesaid, it is enacted " that it shall be
" lawful for the Bishop of the Diocese, and he is hereby required,
" subject to the several provisions and restrictions in the said Act
" contained, to appoint to any Curate of a non-resident Incum-
" bent such stipend as is specified in this Act :" and " that
" in every case in which any spiritual person shall have been, since
" the 20th day of July, 1813, or shall hereafter be instituted,
" inducted, nominated, or appointed to, or otherwise become
" Incumbent of any Benefice, and shall not duly reside thereon,
" the Bishop shall appoint for the Curate licensed under the
" provisions of this Act to serve such Benefice, such stipend as
" is hereinafter next mentioned ; (that is to say) such stipend
" shall in no case be less than £80 per annum, or than the annual
" value of the Benefice, if such value shall not amount to £80 ;
" nor less than £100 per annum, or than the whole value if such
" value shall not amount to £100, in any Parish or Place where
" the population shall amount to 300 persons ;" JCOU) E> this

23
Deponent, say, That I have been instituted to the Perpetual
Curacy of Grove aforesaid, since the 20th day of July, 1813 :
That the annual value of the said Benefice is more titan £80
and less than £100 : That the population of the said Parish of
Grove amounts to upwards of 300 persons : That the Stipend
assigned to the said J. S. G. Cranmer, in and by his Licence of
June 10th, 1853, by the Bishop of Oxford, as aforesaid, was
Fifty Pounds per annum : That the said annual stipend of £50
was, on the 29th day of September, 1855, by an endorsement
under the hand of the said Bishop, in and upon the said Licence
of June, 10th, 1853, augmented to the sum of Seventy-five
Pounds : That neither the said stipend of Fifty Pounds nor the
said stipend of Seventy-five Pounds is in accordance with the
provisions of the said Statute hereinbefore recited, but is at
variance with and contrary to the same, being less than the
stipends which, by the said provisions, the said Bishop is required
to appoint.
&n& iUfftttm, in the fourth place, by the 87th sect, of
Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted " that in every case in
" which the Bishop shall be satisfied that any spiritual person,
" holding any Benefice within his Diocese, is raon-resident, or
" has become incapable of performing the duties thereof from
" age, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, and that, from
" these, or from any other special and peculiar circumstances,
" great hardship or inconvenience will arise, if the full stipend
" specified in this Act should be allowed to the Curate of such
" Benefice, it shall be lawful for such Bishop, with the consent
" of the Archbishop of the Province, to be signified in writing
" under the hand ofthe said Archbishop, upon the Licence to be
" granted to such Curate, to assign to the Curate such stipend,
" less than the full amount in this Act specified, as shall appear
" to him just and reasonable : provided always, — That in the
" Licence granted in every such case it shall be stated, that for
" special reasons the Bishop hath not thought proper to assign
" to the Curate the full stipend required by this Act : provided
"also — That such special reasons shall be entered fully in a
" separate Book to be kept for that purpose, and to be deposited
" in the Registry of the Diocese, which Book shall be open to

24
" inspection with the leave of the Bishop, as in the cases of
" application for Licences for Non-residence ;"
NCti) E, this Deponent, say, — That I have seen and
examined the original Licence granted to the said J. S. G.
Cranmer on the 10th day of June, 1853, by the Bishop, and
endorsed by the said Bishop on the 29th day of September,
1855 ; and that I have been furnished, by the Secretary of the
said Bishop, with a copy of the same : That the stipend
assigned in the said Licence to the said J. S. G. Cranmer is
less than the full amount specified in the Act aforesaid : That
no " consent of the Archbishop of the Province" to the assign
ment, by the said Bishop, of a stipend less than the full
stipend specified in the Act, is " signified in writing," as re-
" quired by the said Act, " under the hand of the said Archbishop
" upon the said Licence :" That it is not stated in the said
Licence, as required by the said Act " in every such case," that " for
" special reasons the Bishop hath not thought proper to assign
" to the Curate the full stipend required by the said Act :"
That I believe and am persuaded "that such special reasons''
have not been " entered fully," as required by the said Act, "in
" a separate Book kept for that purpose, and deposited in the
" Registry of the Diocese :" and That I found such my belief
and persuasion upon the following correspondence which has
taken place between myself and the said Bishop, with reference
to the said Book : — " Eynsham Vicarage, Dec. 2, 1 856.
" My Lord, — By the 87th section of Statute 1 and 2 Vict.
" c. 1 06, it is enacted ' That in every case in which the Bishop
" ' shall be satisfied that any spiritual person holding any Bene-
" ' fice within his Diocese is non-resident, or has become
" ' incapable of performing the duties thereof from age, sick-
" ' ness, or other unavoidable cause, and that, from these, or
" ' from any other special and peculiar circumstances, great
" ' hardship or inconvenience would arise, if the full stipend
" ' specified in this Act should be allowed to the Curate of
" ' such Benefice, it shall be lawful for such Bishop, with the
" ' consent of the Archbishop of the Province, to be signified
" ' in writing, under the hand of the said Archbishop, upon the

25
" ' Licence to be granted to such Curate, to assign to the Curate1
" ' such stipend, less than the full amount in this Act specified,
" ' as shall appear to him just and reasonable : provided always,
" ' that in the Licence granted in every such case it shall be
" ' stated, that for special reasons the Bishop hath not thought
" ' proper to assign to the Curate the full stipend required by
" ' the Act : provided also, that such special reasons shall
" ' be entered fully in a separate Book to be kept for that
" ' purpose, and to be deposited in the Registry of the Diocese,
" ' which Book shall be open to inspection with the leave of the
" ' Bishop, as in the cases of application for Licences for Non-
" ' residence.'
" In accordance with the provisions which I have just quoted,
" I hereby respectfully request ' leave' of your Lordship to
" inspect the Book kept for the purpose aforesaid, and deposited
" for that purpose, in the Registry of your Lordship's Diocese.
" I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W. Simcox Bricknell.
" The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford."

" Oxford, 6th December, 1856.
" Revd. Sir, — I am desired by the Bishop of Oxford to
" inform you that he referred your Letter of the 2nd instant to
" the Chancellor of the Diocese, who acted as his Lordship's
" Assessor at the hearing on the 1st instant ; and that the
" Chancellor concurs with the Bishop in opinion, that as the
" case was then decided after a full and fair hearing, both on
" the part of yourself and of Mr. Cranmer, it cannot now be in
" any respect reopened. " I am, Rev. Sir,
" Your very faithful
" John M. Davekfort.
" The Rev. W. Simcox Bricknell."

" Eynsham Vicarage, December 5, 1856.
" My Lord, — In my Letter to your Lordship of the 2nd
" instant — your Lordship's reply to which, through your Secre-
" tary, Mr. Davenport, reached me yesterday — I made no

26
" reference to any case heard and decided before your Lordship
" and the Chancellor of the Diocese as your Lordship's Assessor.
" I merely stated that, under the provisions of a Statute
" which I quoted to your Lordship, a certain Book, - open to
" « inspection by leave ofthe Bishop,' is to be kept and deposited
" for a special purpose, in the Registry of every Diocese ;
" which Book, in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of
" the Statute in question, I respectfully requested your Lord-
" ship's ' leave' to inspect.
" Your Lordship's note of the 6th instant contains, as I need
" scarcely remind your Lordship, no answer to my request, I
" am therefore, under the necessity of repeating my application,
" and of soliciting from your Lordship the favour of a definite
" reply. " I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W. Simcox Bricknell.
" The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford."
" Oxford, 11th December, 1856.
*' Revd. Sir* — I am desired by the Bishop of Oxford to inform
" you, in reply to your Letter of the 8th instant, that the Book
" in the Registry in which copies of all Licences to Stipendiary
" Curates are entered, is accessible to you.
" I am, Rev. Sir,
" Your very faithful
" John M. Davenport.
" The Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

" Eynsham Vicarage, December 16, 1856.
" My Lord, — Upon my return to Eynsham, after a few days'
" absence, I find a communication from your Lordship in answer
" to my Letter of the 8th instant.
" That Letter, as your Lordship is aware, contained a second
" application, on my part, for your Lordship's ' leave' to inspect
" a certain ' Separate Book,' kept and deposited in the Registry
" ofthe Diocese, for a special purpose, under an express provi-
" sion in Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sect, eighty-seven.
" To this repeated application your Lordship has furnished
" me with the following answer : ' The Book in the Registry

27
" ' in which copies of all Licences to Stipendiary Curates are
" ' entered, is accessible to you.'
" Of this fact, my Lord, I was already fully aware : the hun-
" dred-and-second section of the Act above referred to, opens
" the Book of which your Lordship speaks to • the inspection of
" ' all persons upon the payment of three shillings and no more.
" For the inspection of that Book no ' leave of the Bishop' is
** required. " I must presume, therefore, that your Lordship has mis-
" apprehended the purport of my request : and respectfully
" referring you to my Letters of the 2nd and 8th instant, I am
" once more under the necessity of soliciting, from your Lord-
" ship, the favour of an early and definite reply.
" I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W, Simcox Bricknell.
"The Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of Oxford."
" Oxford, Jan. 1, 1857.
" Dear Sir, — I am directed by the Bishop of Oxford to state,
" in reply to your question, that you mistake the reading of the
" 87th section of the 1st and 2nd Vict. c. 106, if you suppose
" that it applies to the circumstances of your non-residence at
" Grove. " Your very faithful
" John M. Davenport.
" The Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

" Eynsham Vicarage, Jan. 3, 1857.
" My Lord, — Whatever conjectures you may be pleased to
" form as to the interpretation which I put upon the 87th section
" ofthe 1st and 2nd Vict. c. 106, and however erroneous such
" conjectural interpretations may appear to your Lordship, it
" is quite impossible that you can yourself so far mistake the
" reading of that section as not to be aware that it contains the
" two following provisions, viz. :
" First, — That a separate Book shall be kept and deposited
" in the Diocesan Registry for a definite purpose ; and, Secondly,
" That such Book shall be open to inspection with the leave of
" the Bishop.

28
" Your Lordship is quite as fully aware, that, with reference
" to the above provisions, I have already thrice solicited your
" Lordship's ' leave" to inspect the Book specified by the
" Statute in question ; and also, that no communication has
" hitherto been made to me by your Lordship, which can be
" regarded as a reply to my application, or which would, for one
" moment, satisfy your own mind, could your Lordship and
" myself exchange the positions which we respectively occupy
" in the matter.
" In troubling your Lordship for the fourth time with a
" repetition of my request, I feel therefore that no apology can
" be required on my part ; and I still venture to entertain a
" hope that I may yet be treated, on the part of your Lordship,
" with that courtesy as least, for which credit must have been
" given by the Legislature to the Order to which your
" Lordship belongs, when it left to the discretion of a Bishop to
" give or to refuse assent to a plain and unmistakeable
" application. " I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W. Simcox Bricknell.
" The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford."

" Oxford, 9th January, 1857.
" Rev. Sir, — I am directed by the Bishop of Oxford to
" acknowledge the receipt of your Letter ofthe 3rd instant, and
" to express his Lordship's regret at the tone and spirit in
" which it is dictated ; but at the same time to repeat to you
" that the 87th section ofthe Statute 1 and 2 Vict, c 106, does
" not apply to the circumstances under which you have been
" non-resident at Grove. " I am, Rev. Sir, " Your very faithful
" John M. Davenport.
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

" Eynsham Vicarage, January 10, 1857.
" My Lord, — Having made four distinct applications to your
" Lordship, under the provisions of Statute I and 2 Vict. c. 106,

29
" s. 87,'-' for leave to inspect' a certain ' separate Book to be
" ' kept and deposited in the Registry of the Diocese,' to the
" intent that in the said ' separate Book shall be fully entered, in
" ' every case' specified by the said Statute, the ' special reasons
" ' on account of which the Bishop ofthe Diocese shall not think
" ' proper to assign to a Curate the full stipend required by the
" ' said Act,' and having failed, on each occasion, to obtain from
" your Lordship any definite reply, I feel that I have now done
" all that can reasonably be expected of me in the matter, and
" that I may well leave the correspondence which has passed
" between us, to speak for itself.
" Whether an enactment couched in such general terms as to
" make it expressly applicable to ' every case in which the
" ' Bishop shall be satisfied that any spiritual person holding any
" 'Benefice in his Diocese is non-resident,' does or does not apply
" to the non-residence from a particular Benefice, alleged by
" your Lordship against a particular spiritual person, — of which
" non-residence your Lordship must, therefore, I conceive, ' be
" ' satisfied,' — is a question which has formed no part of my
" application to your Lordship, and upon .which, with all due
" respect for your Lordship's opinion, I deem it wholly unne-
" cessary to offer any remark.
" I am sorry that your Lordship should have had occasion to
" ' regret the tone and spirit' of my last Letter.
" I am, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's faithful Servant,
" W. Simcox Bricknell.
" To the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford."

aitiT tifyevtati, in the fifth place, by the 91st and 92nd
sections of the said Statute, 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted,
" that in every case in which the Bishop shall assign to any
" Curate a stipend equal to the whole annual value of the Bene-
«' fice in which he is licensed to serve, such stipend shall be
" subject to deduction in respect to all such charges and outgoings
" as may legally affect the value of such Benefice, and to any loss
" or diminution which may lessen such value, without the wilful
" default or neglect of the spiritual person holding the Benefice:"
and, " That in every such case as last aforesaid-it shall be lawful

30
" for the Bishop, upon the application of the spiritual person
" holding the Benefice, to allow such spiritual person to retain
" in each year so much money, not exceeding in any case one-
" fourth part of the annual value as shall have been actually
" expended during the year in the repair of the house of residence
" and premises and appurtenances thereto belonging, in respect of
" which such spiritual person, or his executors or administrators,
" would be liable for dilapidations to the successor ;"
WoU) E> this Deponent, further say, That, inasmuch as by
his Licence of the 10th day of June, 1853, the said Bishop has,
contrary to the provisions ofthe Statute aforesaid, assigned to the
said J. S. G. Cranmer the stipend of £75, being less than the
full amount required by the said Statute, — I am and have been by
the said Licence, rendered wholly responsible for the charges
and outgoings, losses and diminutions aforesaid, and disqualified
from retaining as aforesaid, from the proceeds of my Benefice,
any portion of the money expended in the repair of the premises
and appurtenances thereto belonging, contrary to the provisions
of the said Statute and to the spirit and intention thereof.
fttltl &Uf)£¥f 30» in the sixth place, by the 94th section of the
Statute aforesaid, it is " enacted that in every case where the
" Bishop shall assign to the Curate licensed to serve in any
" Benefice a stipend not less than the whole value of the same,
" and shall, in addition to such stipend, direct that such
" Curate shall reside in the house of residence belonging to such
" Benefice, such Curate shall be liable, during the term of his
" serving such Cure, to the same taxes and parochial rates
" and assessments, in respect of such house, premises, and
" appurtenances thereto belonging, as if he had been Incumbent
" ofthe Benefice;"
NOtt) E» this Deponent, further say, That, inasmuch as by
his Licence ofthe 10th day of June, 1853, the said Bishop has,
as aforesaid, contrary to the Statute, assigned to the said J. S.
G. Cranmer a stipend less than the whole value of the Benefice
of Grove, and has, by such Licence, in addition to such stipend,
directed that the said J. S. G. Cranmer shall reside in the house
of residence belonging to the said Benefice ; I am and have been,
by the said Licence, made liable to the payment of the taxes
and parochial rates and assessments aforesaid, contrary to the

31
provisions ofthe said Statute and to the spirit and intention
thereof. \JtlO* \S3fytVt&8 in reference to the third point, wherein as I
have hereinbefore declared, the said Bishop did grant hi< Licence
of June 10th, 1853, in contravention of and not " subject to the
" several provisions and restrictions" contained in Statute 1 and 2
Vict. c. 106, — it was stated by the Chancellor of the Diocese in
delivering the Adjudication of the said Bishop, on the aforesaid
1st day of December, 1856, that the said " Bishop finding that
" the value of the Benefice of Grove was greater than he had
" at first supposed, subsequently augmented the stipend of the
" said J. S. G. Cranmer, from fifty to seventy-five pounds ;'"
WOti) E» this Deponent, further say, That the value of the
said Living, if unknown to the said Bishop at the time of granting
the said Licence, ought to have been fully known, and would
have been so known to the said Bishop, had not he, the
said Bishop, contrary to the Statute aforesaid, neglected and
omitted to require, as hereinbefore declared, the " Statement of all
" particulars by the said Act required to be stated" previous to
the granting of any such Licence.
St tlO* ttltjcrtas in reference to. the four th point, wherein, as I
have hereinbefore declared, the said Bishop didgrant his Licence
of June 10th, 1853, in contravention of and not "subject to the
" several provisions and restrictions'' contained in Statute 1 and 2
Vict. c. 106, — it has been stated by the said Bishop, in his Letters
of Jan. 1st and Jan 9th hereinbefore recited, — " that the 87th
" section of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, does not apply to the
" circumstances under which" I, this Deponent, " have been non-
" resident at Grove :" NoU) E* this Deponent, further say, and
am prepared to prove, by letters to this Deponent, in the hand
writing ofthe said Bishop, That, in licensing the former Curates
of this Deponent, the said Bishop did, " in his judgment, justly
" allow" to such Curates, a less stipend than that required by
the said Act, in consequence of " special and peculiar circum-
" stances" stated to the. said Bishop by this Deponent : and That
there is no provision whatever in Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106,
by which such allowance of a less stipend as aforesaid can
legally be made, save and except the provision contained in the

3is
aforesaid eighty-seventh section, which section the said Bishop
now maintains is not applicable to the case of this Deponent.
UPljtYtfOVt E» this Deponent, say, in answer to the said
Monition so served on me as aforesaid, and in return to the
same, — That the Licence granted, as aforesaid, to the said J. S.
G. Cranmer by the said Bishop of Oxford, on the 10th day of
June, 1853, and adjudged and determined by the said Bishop
himself, as aforesaid, to be a valid Licence, was not granted
" subject to the several provisions and restrictions contained"
in the Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, but that the said Licence is
illegal, being at variance with and contrary to the same.
'UlliO ft)f)£Y£S0 the proceedings in this Matter have been
instituted, as aforesaid, under the eighty-third section of the
aforesaid Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106 : &n& Wt)ttt&& the
provisions of the said section relate to " any difference that
" shall arise between the Incumbent of any Benefice and his Curate,
" touching his stipend or the payment thereof, or of the arrears
" thereof;" and not to any illegality in the appointment or Licence
of such Curate on the part of the Bishop as is herein alleged
against the said Bishop by this Deponent, and as was so alleged by
him at the Hearing of this Matter on the aforesaid 1st day of
December, 1856, previous to the Adjudication of the same by
the said Bishop : NoiD E> this Deponent, further say, in
answer to the said Monition so served as aforesaid, and in return
to the same, — That it was not competent to the said Bishop, and
that he had no jurisdiction under the aforesaid eighty-third
section of the said Statute, nor under any other the provisions
in the said Statute contained, summarily to hear and determine
this Matter, and to be the judge in his own cause, and to decide
upon the legality or otherwise of his own acts so impugned and
called in question as aforesaid, by this Deponent.
aU iHfjiCl) Sftlarattons E, this Deponent, do hereby make
by this my iclffitjabtt, under the provisions contained in the
hundred-and-twelfth section ofthe aforesaid Statute 1 and 2 Vict.
c 106, Ell Smfitocr tO t$e iOonttiOlt so served upon me
as aforesaid, and En l Ctum tO flje &imt I and E 50 t)f VCb$
by this my &ffi3ja»tt gfjOto (ttaitfit, as by the aforesaid pro
visions of the said Statute it is competent to me to do, why a

33
Sequestration should not issue according to the tenor of such
Monition. En ftttnOfg iUffttCOf E, this Deponent, have
hereunto set my hand the day and year herein above
written.

(Signed)

W. SIMCOX BRICKNELL.

The above Affidavit was taken and made upon oath before
me, the undersigned, John Winston Spencer Churchill,
Marquess of Blandford, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the
Peace for the County of Oxford, under the provisions of Statute
1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sect. 123, at Hensington, in the said
County, the day and year above written.
(Signed)
BLANDFORD.

APPENDIX A.

" Eynsham Vicarage, May 26, 1853.
" Dear Mr. Cranmer,— I am anxious to hear whether, when
" Mr. Butler visited my Church at Grove, he read my Notice
" as to the administration of the Sacraments, and, if so, whether
" he made any and what remark. I hope and trust that you
•' will steer clear of Mr. Butler and his services. I have fought
" iard for my bold upon Grove, in order that what 1 believe to
" be the essential truths of the Gospel may be preached to my
" own people, and to any who may wish to hear, with them,
" what they cannot hear elsewhere. Several persons in Wantage
" have been in the habit of attending Grove Church, and will,
" I have no doubt, continue to do so : but anything like sym-
" pathy with Wantage teaching and practice would assuredly
" drive them away and empty the Church. Mr. Butler once
" very frankly told me that my views and his own are as wide
" asunder as the poles ; and this, doubtless, is the reason why
" he (in whom the patronage of the living is now vested) and
" the Bishop, have, for years past, strained every nerve to force
" me to relinquish the position which I occupy, and which, with
" God's help, I intend to occupy so long as I live, for the sake
" of the truth of the Gospel. I am, yours very truly,
W. Simcox Bricknell.
" Rev. J. S. G. Cranmer."

" Grove Parsonage, May 30, 1853.
" My dear Sir,— When Mr. Butler called on me he asked to
" see the Church, and I obtained the keys and we both entered

35
" together. We walked up to the altar, and he looked up and
" round the Church* and returned towards the door, and
" passing down,, the Notice attracted his eye ; he stopped and
" began to read it ; and as soon as he saw that it was a copy
" from the Capons, he merely drew his finger down towards
" the bottom! and re*»d here and there a line, and said, ' Oh !
" ' this is copied from the Canons,' and walked out.
" What am I to do ? I must not be rude to Mr. Butler,, if
" he is, as you say, a T-ractarian- I maintain that such fanciful
*' things as a few flowers in his Church, pictures in his School-
" room, and chanting the Litany of an evening, will never make
" one proselyte to Rome. I and my youngster have been three
" Sunday evenings to Wantage, and have heard the Litany
" intoned, and an excellent sermon from, the Curates as anybody
" could hear.
" I shah have to call on Mr. Butler to execute a little
" husiness with regard to my Licence : so you see there are
" times when we must meet ; and although you do not appear
" to be very friendly with him, I must acquit myself in a proper
" manner, and I hope in that way that will never give you cause
" for any uneasiness ; so no more of this disagreeable stuff.
" Yours very faithfully,
" J. S. G. Cranmer.
"Rev. W.S. Bricknell."

" Eynsham Vicarage, June 4, 1853.
" Dear Mr. Cranmer, — Your account of Mr. Butler's visit to
" my Church at Grove is precisely what I anticipated : the
" Notice, however, is too ' canonical' to be interfered with.
" You quite mistake me if you suppose that I have the least
" unfriendly feeling towards Mr. Butler ; or that I would treat
" him myself, or wish you, or any person representing me at
" Grove, to treat him otherwise than as a gentleman.
" Hitherto, however, there has been no sympathy between
" Grove and Wantage in matters ecclesiastical : and every day
" I live convinces me, more and more, of the paramount im-
" portance of keeping the line of demarcation clear and distinct.
" Hence, the intelligence contained in your last letter has
" caused me much uneasiness and disappointment. I cannot,

36
" however, enter more fully into this point now, as I am pressed
" for time, and must therefore recur to it hereafter.
" My immediate object in writing is to beg that you will, as
" soon as possible, inform me what has passed with reference to
" your Licence. The Bishop having received no nomination
" from me, I am quite at a loss to understand your meaning.
" or to imagine what Mr. Butler can have to do in the matter.
" Pray enlighten me, without delay, upon this subject, as it is
" really one with which I have some little concern !
" Yours very truly,
" W. Simcox Bricknell.
" Rev. J. S. G. Cranmer."

" Grove Parsonage, June 10th, 1853.
" My dear Sir, — Mr. Burder sent for my letters of orders, —
" as you will see from his note enclosed, — and returned them
" to me with the usual declaration to be signed, and the oaths
" to be administered by Mr. Butler as the Bishop's Commissary.
" Nothing more or less has been transacted that I am aware of.
" I suppose Mr. Burder thought it high time I was licensed, or
" perhaps the Bishop would not allow me to officiate.
" Yours very faithfully,
" J. S. G. Cranmer.
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

APPENDIX B.

To the Right Reverend Samuel, by Divine permission,
Lord Bishop of Oxford,
%XjaTjZKtilf> by a certain Document under the hand and
seal of your Lordship, and bearing date the eighth day of
November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and fifty-six, I, the undersigned William Simcox Bricknell,
Clerk, Perpetual Curate of Grove, in the County of Berks, and
Vicar of Eynsham, in the County of Oxford, within your Lord
ship's jurisdiction, was cited to appear before your Lordship on
Monday, the first day of December then next ensuing, at the
Office of the Registrar of the said Diocese, at two o'clock in the
afternoon, then and there to show cause why a certain amount
of Stipend alleged to be due from me, under a Licence granted
by your Lordship on the tenth day of June, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, to James
Stewart Gordon Granmer, Clerk, described in the said Licence as
Stipendiary Curate of the Parish of Grove aforesaid, should not
be paid and satisfied :
WOU) L the said William Simcox Bricknell, duly appearing
in answer to the said Citation of your Lordship, at the time
and place therein appointed, do hereby show cause as follows :
9£1)at the powers of your Lordship to appoint and licence
Stipendiary Curates are conferred and regulated by a certain
Statute made and passed in the first and second year of the
reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, intituled "An Act to
" abridge the holding of Benefices in Plurality, and to make better
" provision for t/oe residence of the Clergy."

38
•EJjat on the tenth day of June aforesaid, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, your Lordship
was not authorised by any provision in the said Act contained,
to appoint and licence, without my nomination, a Curate to the
Perpetual Curacy of Grove.
?n(jat in and by the above recited Act it is expressly
provided that the Stipends to be assigned to Stipendiary Curates
shall be regulated according to a certain scale therein laid down,
and proportioned to the value and population of the Benefice to
which such Curate shall be licensed ; and that the Bishop shall
appoint for such Curate such Stipend as by the said Act is
directed and no other.
2Tfjat the Stipend of Fifty Pounds per annum, assigned by
your Lordship to the said James Stewart Gordon Cranmer, as
Curate of the said Perpetual Curacy of Grove, in and by the
said Licenee, dated the tenth day of June, 1853,. is not in
conformity with the provisions of the said Act.
5Tl)at the augmented Stipend of Seventy-five Pounds per
annum, assigned to the said James Stewart Gordon Crammer, as
such Curate aforesaid, by your Lordship's endorsement of the
twenty-ninth day of September, 1855, in and upon the said
Licence of the tenth day of June, 1853, is equally at variance
with the requirements ofthe said Act.
iJTIjat the appointment by your Lordship of the said James
Stewart Gordon Cranmer to the Stipendiary Curacy of the Parish
of Grove, at the time and with the several Stipends herein before
mentioned, was an invasion of my lawful rights as Incumbent
of the Benefices of Grove and Eynsham.
2T!)at such appointment has been, and still is, attended
with serious detriment to the spiritual interests of my
Parishioners, and with much inconvenience, discomfort, and
pecuniary damage to myself.
3%p0n tt)CQe flrOUnOe, and having endeavoured, by
eveiy means within my power, from time to time, yet without
success, to obtain, at your Lordship's hands, that redress to
which I believe myself to be entitled, and that investigation
into the state of my Parish of Grove, which so important a
matter demands ;
E DO t)CVt br> firmly and advisedly, but with all due respect

3y
for your Lordship's office, declare to your Lordship, that I
decline to recognise the said James Stewart Gordon Cranmer as
the legally-constituted Stipendiary Curate of my said Parish of
Grove, or to be in any way, directly or , indirectly, a voluntary
party to an appointment which I believe in. my conscience to be
in contravention of the Statute Lww of the Realm, — injurious to
the spiritual welfare of my people, — and subversive of the just
rights and privileges ofthe Beneficed Clergy ofthe United Church
of England and Ireland, as by Law Established.
En ti)itne«(0 tiOfytttOf I, the said William Simcox
Bricknetl have hereunto set my hand, at the Office
ofthe Registrar ofthe Diocese of Oxford, this first day
of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and -fifty-six.
(Signed)
W. SIMCOX BRICKNELL.

APPENDIX C.

" Oakham, Feb. 26, 1853.
" My motive in coming to reside at Eynsham was this : I
" intended to leave Oakham some time in the summer ; and I
" thought I might as well be at Eynsham as anywhere else: for
" I should be nearer my bookseller, from whom I am so far
" distant. I remember Grove, and shall feel happy in having
" the opportunity of rendering you any assistance in my power,
" or to take your Curacy altogether, as I should like to be near
" Oxford. " J. S. G. Cranmer.
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

" Oakham, March 5, 1853.
" A couple of rooms in your Parsonage will be all the house-
" room I require. In the event of Mrs. Cranmer coming into
" those parts I should take a small house for the accommodation
" of herself and goods, some of which we should wish to retain.
" J. S. G. Cranmer.
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

" Grove Parsonage, April 18, 1853.
" We shall make little or no use of the drawing room ; the
" study will be tenanted by me ; and every thing you have here
" shall be taken the greatest care of, both indoors and out.
" J. S. G. Cranmer.
" Rev. W. S. Bricknell."

H. COOKE AND CO., PRINTERS, OXFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 7314

KALE
nmSH HISTORY
-' ^RESERVATION
i PROJECT
SUPPORTED ^ NEH

r.p

%

*>

.*-*V v #•*¦

><?

10*bLj

»->.\

f-ffi&i

y?

v>fc;