Chap. 10.] PARISH OF WHITF.CHAPEL. 227 



"In that case it were superfluous to say that our late Diocesan, Dr. 

 May, on behalf of Mr. Stephenson, who applied for his consent to 

 hold Lund-cum-Kirkham, observed that if the patron chose to nom- 

 inate him to both Whitechapel and Lund, he could see no objection, 

 but he is not the person alluded to for the present momt. 



" Dear Sir, believe me Your faithful and obedient servant, 



" Humphrey Shuttleworth." 



The second letter from the Rev. H. Shuttleworth is dated 

 April 8th, [1812]. In it he says to Mr. Cross : — " I must not omit my 

 sincere thanks, on the first opportunity, for your kind and well directed 

 attention to the disagreeable subject then in question. You might at 

 the same time be assured that I should roadilj' avail myself of any 

 opportunity of forwarding your proposed plans on a subsequent occa- 

 sion, were it not for several almost insuperable obstacles. In the first 

 place it wiU be near six months before Mr. Saul will abdicate. Mr. 

 Wilkinson, j-ou may possibly remember, was objected to by the very 

 man who undertakes to carry everything his own way. He said in 



your presence that Mr. W n was disapproved of, before he had 



been tried. He arrived at Whitechapel on a Friday, and the very 

 next day it was that MiUer came to signify their disapprobation of him 

 as Curate there. I had been told that the plan was to tire out Mr. 

 Saul, and then they would find a man who would be their school- 

 master, etc., as they liked. AU this in defiance of the Incumbent pro 

 tempore, and of the Patron who was to nominate. In the next place, 

 it is a well-known maxim, that a solicitation from inhabitants at large 

 must be an immediate obstacle. One more application of that nature, 

 if complied with, would be almost a standing precedent in future. 

 Mr. W n has no claim to the succession on account of the date of 

 his services, and there are several Curates under the same Patronage 

 who might think themselves aggrieved if passed over without the 

 offer of an exchange. To say no more at present, I have to apologise 

 for a small undesigned inadvertency — having returned your note, 

 together with the other papers shown to me yesterday by the Church- 

 warden from Whitechapel — but I think the tenor of it was no more 

 than is abeady supposed in that place. There is at aU events sufficient 



