He was to write to Mr. Rawlins and get general instructions. The same day (the 8th of June) I caused a communication to be made to Mr Axford, the incumbents churchwarden, to the following effect: that if it could be made clear that the bills in question had been long fide incurred, Mr. Marsh was prepared (if need be) to undertake to settle with the creditors, provided that by so doing he could at once secure the removal of the present incumbent. On the 10th of June I received in reply a letter intimating that Mr. Rawlins had left Hastings before my letter arrived, and that Mr. Axford did not know his address. I wrote two subsequent letters to Mr. Hughes, and on the 17th I received from him the letter which I subjoin as addendum to this statement.
[The letter referred to, which appears in the printed circular, we are compelled to omit, for the want of space. This communication seems to preclude all prospect of arrangement, notwithstanding this - when Mr Rawlins was gazetted a bankrupt, I found out and called upon the solicitor whom he employed to take him through the court, and this eventually led to an interview with a Mr. Gardines (the accountant employed by Mr Rawlins and his friends) on the 6th of July. Mr Gardiner then and there stated that there appeared to be but one course under the circumstances, viz, that Mr. Rawlins should resign but that some consideration should be shewn him by discharging the bills for repairs, though it would not be prudent for Mr. Rawlins to resign until after the final meeting in Basinghall street, which was fixed for the 30th of July. I admitted there was some reason in this, and stated Mr. Marsh’s readiness to assume the liabilities referred to on his furnishing me with particulars, which he promised to do), and provided there was nothing illegal in the transaction. I have since written two letters to Mr. Gardiner for such particulars, but have never received from him any communication whatever. It is difficult to see what more could have been done by Mr. Marsh to meet the case, or how in common honesty can now intimate that on the part of the patron the proposal has never been accepted throughout this protracted delay and that there was an evident wish to force a resignation and obtain the church improvements for nothing. It is but just to Mr. Marsh to add that the alterations, &c, for which the incumbent claims compensation, were objected to and protested against by Mr. Marsh, thro' my intervention while they were being incurred, and were such as the incumbent had no legal right to make. It is therefore a hardship on the patron to be now saddled with the expense of them. The second inference from Mr. Rawlins's statement is that Mr. Marsh threatend him with proceedings unless he would resign" .As a matter of fact Mr Marsh never did anything of the kind, and I challenge some verification of this unworthy insinuation. It is highly probable -
