ANCIENT CHURCHES—ACT OF PARLIAMENT CHURCHES AND CHAPELS—CHURCH-YARDS—CHURCH-RATES—PARSONAGE-HOUSES—ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS—PLACES OF WORSHIP BUILT AND SUPPORTED BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, UPHOLDING THE STATE RELIGION; AND THOSE DISSENTING THEREFROM.
Itis not worth while to enter into an elaborate enquiry, to shew that the parish of Paddington was at one time included in the parish of Tybourn, and that the ancient Tybourn church was the mother-church of the whole of those districts, now included in the parishes of St. Mary Abbot’s Kensington, Paddington, and Marylebone; but the facts and arguments which have been already adduced to prove that Westbourn and Tybourn were but synonymous terms; and that the modern manor of Paddington was but a portion of the ancient Tybourn manor, may serve to sanction such a supposition.
Maitland, Lysons, and other authors, tell us that the ancient church of Tybourn was situated near the present Marylebone Court-house—i.e. besidethe modernTybourn; but the only evidence these authorities condescend to give in support of their opinion, is, that in 1729, “a great quantity of bones were dug up at this place.” They offer no proof, however, that these bones belonged to the inhabitants of the ancient village of Tybourn; neither do they attempt to shew that they were not the remains of some of those who had died in London of the plague, which raged there in the previous century. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine, part 1, p. 315, 1809, seems to me, to be quietly quizzing those antiquarians who accepted this story of the bones, when he tellsthe public that “in all ancient documents, Mary la bonne (Mary the Good) is called Sancta Maria de Ossibus, (Saint Mary of Bones).” Lysons, however, does not see the joke, for he gravely replied in his second edition, “I have never seen any in which it is so described.”
It may be worthy of remark, that the ancient Tybourn church, wherever it was situated, was taken down in the year 1400, by order of the Lord Chancellor, Bishop Braybrook, when the honors and estates of the noble family who built and endowed this church, were in the keeping of a youth barely seventeen years of age;[132]and that the Westminster monks never, either by hook or by crook, obtained possession of this ancient advowson. A rival establishment, however, was built either for them, or by them, on their newly acquired property at Paddington, and, as we have already seen, the spiritual direction of the Paddington district was assigned to them as early as 1222; previous to which time a place of worship had been built here; and for upwards of six hundred years this small house, erected both for public worship and public instruction, was deemed sufficient for rich and poor, saint and sinner, and to it an unbought spot of consecrated ground was annexed, the quiet resting-place of all those who had lived in Paddington.
So pretty was the church, and so tranquil seemed this country burial-place, not a century since, that many of those who witnessed the abominations committed in the consecrated grounds of London and Westminster, longed to secure for their corruptible bodies a nook in this village church-yard; and so manifest was this desire, during the whole of the last century that, though the population of Paddington was increasing, the burials here far exceeded the baptisms.
In Lysons’ “Environs,” this fact stands exemplified thus—
Years.
Years.
Average AnnualBaptisms.
Avenge AnnualBurials.
1702 to
1711
10.6
38.1
1740 „
1749
16.6
193.3
1780 „
1789
16.5
192.3
1790 „
1794
36.6
244.6
And this addition of motionless mortality to the soil, like the development of its resources by the increase of active life, formed but an additional inducement to its insatiable lords to increase their demands upon the people; for I findfrom records still preserved,[133]that after they had obtained the Act which bound the inhabitants of Paddington to pay a rent-charge for their “pretty church-yard;” and after the infamous Act of 1795, the lord and his lessees were urgent in their demands for a share of those fees, which were obliged to be levied on the relatives of the dead, to secure the performance of those duties which these rectors were already well paid to perform.
Of the earliest Christian temple erected in Paddington, I have nothing more to say than what I have already said, excepting this, that in all probability it was built and endowed by the first possessors of “the Paddington Estate,” whoever they were; and, whatever were their sins respecting that estate,theymust be exonerated from that amount of refined selfishness which has enabled others to take the property dedicated to God, and God’s poor, and leave the people to their own resources for providing themselves with places of worship, and “the cup of charity” for the aged and infirm.
The “old and ruinous” church, pulled down about 1678, was, in the opinion of that accurate observer, Newcourt, dedicated to St. Katherine; for, says he, “I observed the picture of St. Katherine to be set up in painted glass, at the top of the middle panel of the east window in the chancel, where oftentimes the Saint, to which any church is dedicated, is placed.”
Newcourt does not tell us to whom the church, “new-built from the ground,” was dedicated; but he saw none of the causes at work which ensured its destruction in rather more than a century; and it could not have been imagined by him that a policy would be inaugurated, and completed, within a century and a half of the time at which he wrote, which would be sorely puzzled to account for the existence of a church built by those who were in receipt of the rectorial revenues. Such a puzzle was not allowed to exist. Doubtlessly, Newcourt thoughtthe namewould have existed more than one hundred and ten years—the time the church was allowed to stand—and indeed it does now exist in thenewparish church; but Newcourt omits to give it.
We find, however, by Willis’s Thesaurus of 1763, and by Lysons, that the Sheldon church was dedicated to St. James.
This country church served Hogarth and Jane Thornhill for a Gretna-Green; for here they were married, much against Sir James’s will, it is said,[134]on the twenty-third of March, 1729.
Chaterlain’s series of views, dated 1750, containstwoof this church; a near north-west view, not mentioned in the King’s Catalogue, British Museum; and a distant view from the green, a copy of which is to be found in the King’s collection.
On the twenty-sixth day of February, in the twenty-eighth year of his reign, George the third, granted by his letters patent to the Rev. Thomas Hayter, the curate of the parish; the Rev. John Shepherd, the assistant curate; and certain others; the power to beg “from house to house throughout England, our town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.” to enable them to rebuild the parish church, which this Brief, and the preamble of the twenty-eighth Geo. III, cap. 74—“An Act for rebuilding the parish church ofPaddington, in the county ofMiddlesex, and for enlarging the church-yard of the said parish,”—tell us “is a very ancient structure, and in such a decayed state, that it cannot be effectually repaired, but must be taken down and rebuilt; besides which, the same is so small, that one-fourth of the present inhabitants within the said parish cannot assemble therein for Divine worship.”
Down to this time, the lords of the Paddington soil, or their lessees, had furnished the tenants, who lived on this church-land, with some sort of church accommodation; but another church was now required and was to be built, although thisvery ancientanddecayed structurewas but one hundred and ten years old; and the question naturally arose, who was to build it? The then lessees; as the lessees had done in 1678? The “Lord of the manor of Paddington;” as the then bishop is called? Or these together? Neither the one, nor the other, nor the two combined. It is no longer those who hold “the rectorial and other lands,” and whose income from those lands has been increasing ever since the time of Bishop Sheldon, who are to build churches in Paddington. The lord and his lesseesknow their duty better than that. Begging boxes are to be sent “from house to house throughout England;” and as that does not succeed, those to whom a portion of the increased accommodation is to be offered, are to be induced or compelled to furnish the necessary funds. Moreover, at the expense of the people, (for the Act expressly declares the pews shall be “rent-free,”) comfortable accommodation, “in or near the chancel,” is to be provided for the lord of the manor of Paddington, “or his or their lessee or lessees.” And although there is now no Dunstan’s bailiff to dread, let those who doubt that the law had power in Paddington at the end of the last century, as it has now, “to take by force” this extra and new church-tax, look to the fourteenth, thirty-fourth, and other sections of thispublicAct; thefirstof the Paddington church building Acts.
Up to one shilling in the pound, on “the yearly rent of lands, houses, shops, warehouses, vaults, mills, and other tenements,” forty-five trustees—six of whom were clergymen—“or anyfiveor more of them,” they, and their successors, had power toassess, and for the sum assessed had power todistress, “in order to accomplish the good and pious purposes of this Act.” Provided always, that the sum raised by this and other means set forth in this Act, “shall not exceed in the whole the sum of four thousand five hundred pounds, including the charges in the enclosing the said waste ground and other incidental charges, and of the procuring, obtaining, and passing this Act.”
“The said waste ground,” here spoken of, beinga portion of the enclosed green[135]nicely measured and carved out—vide Act—which “The Right Reverend Father-in-God, Beilby, Lord Bishop of London, is willing and desirous” to give; and which he does give at a rent of six shillings a year. First, having in this Act, and for the first time anywhere, so far as I can discover, put in his claim to be “entitled to the waste ground within the said parish (subject to commonage thereon).”
But the sum to which this Act limited the taxing, was found to be insufficient; and another Act was required, “for enlarging the powers of, and rendering more effectual, an Act, made in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of his present Majesty, entituled, An Act for re-building the Parish Church of Paddington, &c., &c.” This, the thirty-third Geo. III, cap. 43, dated thirtieth April, 1793, contains all thewhining for further powers, which so commonly saluted the ears of his Majesty’s faithful Lords and Commons when church-building Acts had to be separately passed.[136]
And the prayer of those who asked, was answered; and a further sum was to be raised by the means provided in the previous Act; but with this additional screw—“That in every case where a justice or justices of the peace shall grant a warrant or warrants of distress, for recovering of any rate or assessment made under the said former or this Act, and a sufficient distress cannot be found, it shall be lawful for such justice or justices of the peace to commit the person or persons, against whom or whose goods and chattels such warrant or warrants of distress may have been issued, to the common gaol or house of correction for the said county, there to remain without bail or mainprize, for any time not exceeding one month,or until payment of such rate or assessment,and the costs and charges attending the recovery thereof”—Section 2.
Further, desecration of the church-yard was permitted; and in spite of all the thought which had been bestowed on the monuments and tombstones in the previous Act, any decayed vault, tombstone, or grave, which offended the sight of the officials, was now to be taken down, or removed, after six months’ notice to repair had been given to “the owner or owners of such vaults.” And the churchwarden or churchwardens, for the time being, were empowered “to sell and dispose of such vaults for the best price that can be got, and to apply the money arising therefrom towards rebuilding or repairing the said parish church.”
And why were these extraordinary powers granted? Because the inhabitants of Paddington were not “capable of raising without the further aid of Parliament,” or were not willing to raise, “a further sum of one thousand five hundred pounds,” to defray the expences required tofinishthe church-yard; and to pay “a considerable sum of money due on account;” and because those who took the profits of “the rectorial and other lands,” did not think it their duty to pay it for them.
How much more than these sums Saint Mary’s has cost, I cannot say; but I presume they very nearly covered all theoriginal expenses, as Lysons was informed by a most excellent authority—a gentleman, who, in imitation of the manifold offices held by the lord of the manor, was assistant curate, parish-clerk, sexton, and vestry-clerk at the same time[137]—that the total sum expended, amounted to £6000.
So much admired was this church at the time it was built; and so picturesque an object it is said to have been, “particularly from the Oxford, Edgeware, and Harrow roads;” that almost all the periodicals of the day take some notice of it.
The Universal Magazine for January, 1793, gives an engraving of it, and the village-stocks, by Eastgate, from a drawing by Earl; and in the same Number there is an account of the building, in which the first stone is said to have been laid “on the twelfth of August, 1788,” and the consecration to have been “in Easter week, 1790.” Lysons, however, tells us, Saint Mary’s was consecrated on the twenty-seventh of April, 1791; the first stone having been laid, according to him, on the twentieth day of October, 1788. As to the date of consecration, Lysons is certainly right, as most likely he is in the other statement, having had so good an authority as the curate, parish-clerk, &c., &c. to furnish him with these and other facts which occurred in Paddington about the time at which he wrote. On the day this church was consecrated, a sermon was preached in it, and a collection made for the benefit of the Sunday School.
The following description of this church, given by the writer in the Universal Magazine, was, in all probability, nearly correct, when written: “It is seated on an eminence, finely embosomed in venerable elms. Its figure is composed of a square of about fifty feet. The centres, on each side of the square, are projecting parallelograms, which give recesses for an altar, a vestry, and two stair-cases. The roof terminates with a cupola and vane: on each of the sides is a door. That facing the south is decorated with a portico composed of the Tuscan and Doric orders, having niches on the sides. The west has an arched window, under which is a circular portico of four columns, agreeable to the former composition.”
Mr. John Plaw, of King Street, Westminster, is said to have been the architect in this account; but Lysons, and Tennant, say Mr. Wapshot, designed this mixed specimen of Tuscan, Doric, and non-descript architecture.
The European Magazine, not to be behind its contemporaries in delineations of the picturesque and beautiful, has an etching of the “New Church at Paddington” by Malcolm; in which he has also shewn what one of the Paddington ponds, already spoken of as existing in the time of Edward VI, was “in the good King George’s reign.”
The old church and the new church are both engraved in the Gentleman’s Magazine, supplement, 1795. The notice of the church there given, seems to have been taken from Lysons, perhaps it was supplied by him; but there is this additional statement, viz.—that the monuments which existed in the former church were placed in a light vault underneath the present structure.
And this church which has been built but sixty-one years and a few months, has been for the last three or four years in jeopardy—not of falling, but of sharing the fate of its predecessor; the same causes having been at work to effect its dissolution, which led to the removal of the Sheldon church:—viz., a population ill provided with church-accommodation—a new parish church built—architects and builders, anxious to shew their skill, still further—influential inhabitants interested in the furtherance of their schemes, ready and willing to vote the requisite supplies out of their neighbours’ pockets—a tempting piece of ground in the immediate vicinity, “doing nothing”—a notion, in some minds, that sundry reminiscences, connected therewith, might thus be obliterated—and the prospect of an increase in burial-fees and pew-rents.
Fortunately, however, better counsels have prevailed; and this amount of consecrated property is not yet doomed to be destroyed. St Mary’s, though no longer the parish church, is to remain, a standing monument to the erudition of those who once governed Paddington. These guardians of the church and poor, not only knew which way the wind blew without the assistance of a lettered vane; but understood Greek; as the unlettered vane, and the inscription on the façade, testify. But as allthe multitudewho have attended St. Mary’s since it was built, have not been able to sing, in the original, that song of the heavenly host which contains the essence of Christianity; and as the English church does not profess to teach people unknown tongues, or object totheir worshiping God in their own, it would have been as well to have given them some key to those golden characters, which are so conspicuously placed on the façade of this Pseudo-Greek temple. Those who desire, or require a translation to that divine announcement, which has been so long hidden in the original, will find it in the English edition of Luke’s epistle to Theophilus, second chapter, and fourteenth verse.
The church-yard was enlarged, as already noticed, by virtue of the powers of the fiftieth Geo. III., cap. 44. This Act, which was obtained on the eighteenth of April, 1810, states, that whereas the population of the parish of Paddington, hath lately much increasedand is likely still further to increase, it is expedient thatthe Church-yardof the said parish should be further enlarged.” But not a word about the enlargement of the church, or increased church-accommodation, notwithstanding the then present, and future state of the parish, is so clearly seen; and although St. Mary’s could now no more hold one-fourth of the inhabitants, than St. James’ had done. Seven hundred and forty pounds had been for three years the average annual income from this grave-yard; the half of which was received by the curate, to make up for the mean stipend allowed by the rectors; the remaining half being paid to the rectors themselves, for their land; so that to endanger this source of income, was a thing not to be dreamed of. This appropriation of the burial fees, continued till the whole of the church-yard was paid for; since which time the half of the fees has been applied to the ordinary expenses of the church; the other half going, as before, to the incumbent; and this may account for the following entry in the Churchwardens’ account, for 1840.
“Paid to parish solicitor, his bill in respect of various cemetery-bills in Parliament, £144 9s.0d.”
“Paid to parish solicitor, his bill in respect of various cemetery-bills in Parliament, £144 9s.0d.”
This yard, no longer the villagers’ unbought resting-place, in which the almost sacred yew-tree[139]grew, had now become necessary for the support of the church; it must be increased therefore, and every inch of ground must be made the best of. Besides securing this income, another object was attempted to be gained by this Act. The trustees were empowered to contract for the purchase of any quantity of land, “not exceeding three acres in the whole,withor withoutbuildings thereon;” and “corporations, &c., were empowered to sell andconvey.” The “house for two tenants called the vicarage house;” had long since been converted into the manor-house; and occupants, more profitable to the Paddington Estate, than the curate, had been found for it; and the house which I believe was afterwards built for a “Parsonage-house,”—a house still standing close to the spot where the old church stood, and which is depicted in John Carey’s map of 1797, as the “Parsonage,”—had been, before this time, converted into the “manor farm-house.”[140a]In fact, the curate had no residence provided for him in the parish. But at the time of passing this Act, the old manor-house had been unoccupied for some time, and was rapidly falling to decay for want of a tenant, whose interest it was to keep it in repair;[140b]and the bishop and his lessees having no further use for it, were anxious to sell; and so the manor house, with a portion of its grounds, was purchased by the church trustees.
The inhabitants, now, much to the chagrin of the schemers, began to find out which way the wind blew; and seeing, (when it was too late,) how their birthright had been sold, resolved to take this little bargain into their special consideration—determining, if possible, to make the best of it, as it had been bought, and to have some control over the receipts and the mode of levying the income which was to be derived from the purchase.
This resolution had the effect of producing many parish squabbles, into some of which even the venerable diocesan himself was dragged. In attempting to regulate the fees to be paid for burials in “the new ground,” certain resolutions were passed by the inhabitants in vestry assembled, by which the bishop “feels himself affronted;” and he declares, he “will not consecrate the new ground, till the offensive resolution is rescinded.” The resolution is not, at once, rescinded. It is resolved that it shall not be. But the bishop is to be informed no offence was intended. All, indeed, that was intended by the people of Paddington, at that time, seems to have been expressed by a resolution of May, 1813; to the effect that “it would be a dereliction of their duty not to leave to posterity the sameprivilegesthey have enjoyed.”
But to speak of privileges now, was thought to be a joke by those who had to deal with people, who, either in theirinnocence, or ignorance, had permitted themselves to be cajoled out of far greater privileges than this. Most assuredly, one could scarcely expect that such people, though repentant, would be listened to; and the matter was ended by a peremptory message from the bishop, in which he declares, “he knows of no privilege belonging to the parish of Paddington, or any other parish respecting the settlement of their own fees;” and that such fees will not be legal, unless confirmed by his Court.
So, although the act for purchasing this ground passed on the eighteenth of April, 1810, no portion of the new burial ground was consecrated till the 9th of November, 1813; and the notion of inducing the parishioners to give up the manor-house for a parsonage-house—which appears to have been the scheme of the sellers, and some of the purchasers,—was not entirely abandoned till 1825; but it was never consented to by the vestry.
The predecessor of the present minister was obliged to be non-resident, for a considerable time, because he could find no house in the parish to live in. He was anxious to be amongst those whose souls had been given to his charge; and in September, 1820, we find he offers to give £200 out of his own pocket, towards purchasing the manor-house, and promises to endeavour to obtain a loan from Queen Anne’s Bounty Fund for the rest of the sum, if the parish will but sell the house. Even a large subscription-list was got up to purchase it. The inhabitants, however, will not now give their consent even to a sale of the property. Having witnessed what the bishop and his lessees got by purchasing the waste, “in the Lanes and Road Ways dispersed in, about, and within the said Parish of Paddington;” perhaps the inhabitants fancied that, by having purchased the very kernel of this estate, they might have also become possessed of some of those tegumentary portions of which their predecessors had been so considerately relieved. But nothing daunted by their refusal, either to give, or sell, and thoroughly knowing their own powers, the managers of the parish bring this question again before a meeting of vestry, held the following month, and the Chairman then declares it to be carried; but on a poll being demanded, and taken, the motion was found to have been lost.
This degree of independence did not at all satisfy the now losing party. That the parishioners should begin to be awake to their own power, was a thing not to be endured, and a local Act was devised for them, into which trap they fell. In thisAct, four rambling clauses are inserted as to what may, and what may not, be done with the manor-house. And it may, if a special meeting of the vestry shall think fit, “be thenceforth for ever held and used as and for the parsonage-house and glebe-lands of the said parish, or as a residence for the perpetual curate of the said parish and his successors.” So impressed, however, were those vestrymen who had been so recently elected under the detestable principles of Sturges Bourne’s Act, with their duty to their fellow-parishioners; and with the necessity there was not to outrage the general feeling thus publicly expressed, that no sanction to part with their purchase could be obtained even from them. But the old manor-house, which had been let by the parish to a lady, who for some time kept a boarding-school there, was doomed to destruction. Occupation did not lay the spectres who had claimed this dwelling for their own. It was pulled down; the materials were sold, and the ground on which it stood, with that portion of its pleasure-ground which remained, was consecrated on the tenth of August, 1825, for the purpose of further increasing the size of the church-yard.
As all, rich and poor, young and old, were now crying shame on the spiritual governors of the parish, for not finding their deputy with a suitable residence, the bishops’ building Act of 1825,—acknowledging the scandal, in these words, “and as the present curate of Paddington has not any house attached to his curacy”—finds out “that it would be proper that the said Lord Bishop of London, &c., should be at liberty to set apart, appropriate, and to settle in free alms, part of the demised property, as the site for a residence, &c.;” and by the seventeenth clause of the sixth George IV., cap. 45, it is enacted, that the said William, Bishop of London, &c., within five years from the passing of this Act, by indenture, “enrolled in the High Court of Chancery,” should grant to Charles Theomartyr Crane, or his successors, any quantity of the Paddington estate, “not exceeding one acre,” to hold for himself and his successors for ever in free alms, and that he, the said curate, shall be “a body corporate for the purpose;” and that he may “receive, take and hold such ground with any messuages and buildings thereon, notwithstanding any of the laws against Mortmain, &c.”
Soon after this an acre of ground,a small portion of“The Parsons Field,”[142]was granted and settled on the curate for the purpose named.
By a return granted by order of the House of Commons, twenty-first of March, 1848, of all monies borrowed from the trustees of Queen Anne’s Bounty, and not re-paid, I find that on the eleventh of October, 1830, St. Mary’s Paddington curacy, borrowed £1,820. That £1,243 13s.4d., had been repaid, as principal, and £693 3s.0d., as interest. This sum, and upwards, I presume, was spent on this acre of freehold ground. A comfortable looking residence, not six stories high, was built; and for many years used as “the parsonage-house.” It is no longer, however, the parsonage; having been sold with the land belonging to it, soon after St. Mary’s ceased to be the parish church. This bargain was secured, as I am informed, by the district surveyor for £3,525; I have also heard there was some difficulty about effecting this sale; and that it was at last managed through the agency of the church-commissioners, who out of the purchase-money paid upwards of £80 towards the expenses of the sale. The greater portion of the balance being applied, according to the benevolent wish of the present minister of the parish, in the purchase oftwoparsonage-houses; one for the new parish church, No. 13, Sussex-gardens, on the north side of St. James’s; the other for the old church—No. 1, St. Mary’s-terrace, the first of a row of eleven houses, built on a strip of the former parsonage pleasure-grounds.
Down to 1818, Saint Mary’s was the only place of worship, in connection with the State-Religion, for the whole of the parish of Paddington.
So destitute of religious instruction and places of worship were the suburbs of London, and many other populous places at this time, that the State itself could no longer remain blind to the need. “A gracious recommendation” came from the throne to the Parliament, and the people; and the fifty-eighth Geo. III., cap. 45—“An Act for building and promoting the building of additional churches in populous parishes”—became a law on the thirtieth May, 1818. We are told by Mr. Faulkner, in his History of Kensington, that Mr. Edward Orme, of Bayswater, was the first private individual who built a chapel, after His Majesty had pointed out this want of church accommodation; Bayswater chapel, in St. Petersburg place, being built at his expense.
This chapel is, as Mr. Faulkner observes, a plain building; but “possesses some advantages over many modern built places of worship.”
The stained glass window of which Mr. Faulkner speaks, has been removed from this church; and the present pulpit would not, I imagine, be considered of the fourteenth century, to which period Mr. Faulkner attributed the one existing, when the History of Kensington was written.
This chapel, which is “capable of holding twelve hundred persons, was opened on the fifteenth of November, 1818, by the Rev. Dr. Busfield,” the first appointed minister. And from that day to the present, it has not cost the parish of Paddington one shilling for its support: a fact so impressive, that no comment or commendation is required. Badly enough must those who wished to see a state-religion preserved, have thought this chapel needed; for, from the returns made in compliance with directions given to the commissioners appointed by the above-named Act, we find that, at this time, in the parishes of Kensington and Paddington, “there are no less than twelve thousand persons more, than could be accommodated in the several places of worship.”
For a single proprietor of the soil to have built one chapel which would hold a tenth part of this unaccommodated population, was something; but this could not satisfy the conscience of the good curate of Paddington, who saw the population of his parish every day increasing.
From 1811, to 1821, the average rate of increase was two hundred souls, per annum; from 1821, to 1831, eight hundred; and although, early in March, 1826, Dr. Crane applied to the Church Commissioners for assistance, it was not till July, 1839, that the plan for Connaught Chapel was finally approved by them. There was no bishop, no lessees, who could see their curate’s distress, and who would come forward with the remedy. The want of the necessary funds to carry out the design; and the death of Mr. Cockerill, the bishop’s surveyor, and the architect originally employed; seem to have been the other chief causes of the delay. For immediately after the first application to the commissioners, we find that they “think a chapel capable of holding fifteen hundred persons,with seven hundred free sittingsshould be built;” and they offer, from the funds entrusted to them by Parliament, £5,500 to accomplish this object. Communication and correspondence take place respecting this offer; and, within a week, the proposed grant is increased to £6,000,with the assurance that onethird of the number the chapel will hold will suffice for the number of free sittings.
This was in March, 1826. By July, 1829, the voluntary subscriptions, amounted to £2,400;[145]which sum, with £59 18s.6d., was placed in the banker’s hands, in order that the building might be begun. Mr. Cockerill’s first plan would have cost £11,020; this he was obliged to modify from the circumstance of sufficient funds not being forthcoming. £8,000 was the amount of his next estimate, but this plan he did not live to carry out; and with its execution his son, the present Royal Acadamician, was not entrusted. To Mr. Fowler, we owe the design for the present building; his final estimate for which was £8,592 5s.0d.
Several ineffectual attempts have been made at different times, since this church was finished, to induce the vestry to grant funds for its enlargement. But in July, 1848, when the church-rate was in full play, the demand could no longer be resisted; and on the fourth of that month, it was resolved by the vestry, unanimously, that the west gallery of St. John’s be enlarged, but at a cost not to exceed £700. The enlargement was effected, and, so far as my knowledge goes, this is the only resolution of the vestry, respecting the expenditure of money for church-purposes, that has ever been observed.
This church, however, even in its brief existence, has been some expense to others, besides those who have been accommodated by it. Down to 1839, the minister received the stipend appointed him by the Church Commissioners; the surplus pew-rents being paid to the churchwardens towards the expenses of the church. Since that date no pew-rents have been paid to the churchwardens of the parish, but they have had to pay out of the parish funds upwards of £4,800, including the sum above-mentioned.
St. John’s is not a copy of any particular period of middle-age art, being built in the style designated pseudo-gothic. But itis not necessary to give any particular description of this building; for I saw by a model of it, which was honoured with an excellent place amidst the multitudinous and never to be forgotten beauties of the Great Exhibition, that Mr. Fowler’s original design was not completely carried out. Its exterior, as finished, presents to us nothing offensive; and the interior is well proportioned, well arranged, and, with the exception of the painted window at the eastern end, contains nothing incompatible with a religious feeling.
Although every one who wishes to receive instruction from the visible remnants of the past, must admire the works of art as preserved to us in the brilliant colours, and quaint symbolic designs, which modify “God’s light” as it attempts to enter into the ancient temples dedicated to his service; and although every one who can so feel, must detest the barbarity of a Barebones—who is said to have thanked God every time his zealous and mischievous weapon was raised from the demolition of the Canterbury windows—yet I think it would be difficult to find any satisfactory reason for the re-introduction of stained glass pictures, and tinted glass, into the church windows of our day. Every reason I have ever heard in favour of “the dim religious light,” or “the scriptural story,” is equally powerful in favour of all other modes of teaching by “stealing the senses.” If painted glass, why not painted canvass? If one picture, why not a hundred? If candles on the altar, why not lighted? If Puseyism, why not full-blown Romanism? But this is only one of the many “first step to Rome.” And as in the case of St. John’s window, which was the origin of this remark, these first steps are not completed at once. How long it took to fill up the whole east window of St. John’s I do not remember; but there were only a few Apostles there at one time; and the “naughty boy”—who went to this church, more I fear to look at this window than to say his prayers, or hear the very excellent and learned ministers who preach there—asked his Ma, one day, “why they did not write down the names ofthose men, so that he could find out who they were?” When he was told they were the Twelve Apostles—he said “Oh no, that can’t be, there are but ten, for I count them every Sunday.”
Twenty years ago, the bishop’s building Acts were beginning to tell in real earnest; and from 1831 to 1841, the increase in the population of the parish of Paddington, averagedaboveone thousand per annum. Yet the errors of the past were unnoticed by those who never wish to see errors in high places; for it was not till the fifth of December, 1837, that the local governors of Paddington saw the necessity, created by this annual addition of a thousand souls to the parish, for increased means of religious instruction, and public worship; and then their attention to this necessity was aroused by their Reverend Chairman, who, on that day, stated he was desired by the Bishop of London to call the attention of the vestry to the great want of additional church room there was in the parish—or more correctly speakingon his estate. The bishop sent word “that he and the trustees had resolved upon a site for a new church; and that he would submit the case, (of the destitution of this parish), to the Metropolitan Church Committee; and would himself subscribe £300!”[147]
The vestry, in obedience to this message, resolved “that an additional church would be highly beneficial to the parish at large;” and a committee, with full powers to carry out this resolution was at once appointed. Expressions of praise escaped some lips; and the vestry did not break up, as their minutes shew, without thanking the bishop for the plot of ground on which the new church was to be built, and the liberal subscription offered by him. Whether any one in the vestry remembered the words of the polished nobleman, who said, “Praise, when it is not deserved, is the severest satire and abuse,” I do not know; I am inclined to believe that the majority of those who tendered their thanks to the bishop, were sincere. But how oddly do those praises and thanks come upon the reader, who has studied the history of the Paddington Estate!
This new Paddington church was to be built by subscription on a site fixed by the owners of the Estate, at the western extremity of the Grand Junction-road. And on the eighth of June, 1840, the committee report “that a design adapted to the wants and means of the parish has been selected by the vestry,” subject to the appropriation of the two great subscribers; “the Metropolitan Churches Committee,” and “Her Majesty’s Commissioners for building new churches.”
Plans were advertised for, and thirty-eight designs were received. “Five of the most eligible” were selected; and the one with the motto, “Let merit bear the Palm,” was especially recommended by the Committee to the vestry. On this, as on many another occasion, however,meritwas jostled out of the field by mediocrity, or something worse, and Mr. Lindsey’s design was rejected on account of his having been induced to increase the detailed cost of the building far beyond his original estimate.
The structure, as it now stands, is said to be the result of the combined genius of Messrs. Gutch and Goldicutt; and we are further told that this precious specimen of “Brummagem Gothic,” was originally designed for a Grecian building, but was altered to suit the “taste of the times.” Mr. Vulliamy, one of the gentlemen who had responded to the advertisement, felt his talent to be so scandalized by the acceptance of this clumsy design, that he printed a letter, which he addressed to the vestry; in which he points out that the successful candidate is very improperly, as he thinks, an influential member of that board. This gentleman, was the bishop’s surveyor, and the district-surveyor—two offices totally incompatible. But who could be supposed to know better the tastes and wants of the people of Paddington? So little did he know, however, that his second, or amended design, was found to be so obtrusively ugly that those who had adopted it could not see it carried out; and, although the original estimate for this design was fixed at £8,600, another thousand was readily added, in order that the deformity, which had been so unanimously fixed on, might be again amended!
This church in all its present taste, the vestry agreed should become the parish church; but it was not till March, 1845, that the Reverend Chairman reported to the vestry that the Church Commissioners had executed the deed to transfer the rights, &c., from St. Mary’s to St. James’s.
A distinct understanding was come to at this time that the old church should be enlarged. And “by these means,” says the report of 1840, “accommodation will be provided for four thousand persons, or including Bayswater chapel, which may hereafter be made a parochial chapel, for more than five thousand persons, in a parish supposed to contain twenty thousand souls.” The report goes on to state that each of the four districts, into which the parish will be divided, “will be placed under the immediate care of its respective minister or ministers; and these important results will have been obtainedwithout any compulsory levy on the parishioners.”
Besides a miscalculation of at least four thousand in the then actual population of Paddington, these reporters must have been very ignorant of the previous history of the parish, or they must have had very bad memories. We have seen how St. Mary’s was built, and how it was paid for; and a church-rate enforced by warrants of distress, and these again backed up by the certainty of imprisonment, till the rate and all expenses were paid, I think one may call a compulsory levy. Even those who lived in the parish the year before this report was written, had felt the twitch of this clerical scourge,—not the last they were to feel by a great number; for on the twenty-fourth of April, 1839, a church-rate was made, and the Cash Accounts for the year ending, April, 1838–39, shew that £850 5s.9¾d.had been collected by “compulsory levy,” in these years, “to pay off Mrs. Jenks’s last Church Bond Debt.” But how these reporters could have forgotten the day ever memorable in the annals of the present vestry of Paddington, I cannot imagine; nor how that on this fifth day of May, 1829, when the church-rate was in danger, the Bishop of London, the Viscount Bernard, the Honourable Mr. Mac’Donald, the Rev. John Joseph Pike, and nine others,—having taken the oath of office, to execute faithfully, impartially, and honestly, according to the best of their skill and knowledge, the several powers and authorities reposed in them—proceeded at once, with other vestrymen, to make a church-rate of threepence in the pound; for so far as I can discover, this is the only time the vestry of Paddington was ever honoured, at its sittings, by a visit from the spiritual and temporal lord of the parish.
This congratulation of the Committee, respecting all the good that had been done without any compulsory levy, was only the warming up, under more favourable circumstances for the instant, of one that had been tendered to the parish, when the first subscriptions for St. John’s were announced. But for that half year, 1826, sixpence in the pound was the amount of the church-rate levied, the full sum allowed by the law. And, although there was no compulsory levy at the time this report was written—none from 1839 to 1842,—yet there was one made in the latter year, which continued to be made twice-a-year, down to 1851, continues to be made annually now, and must be continued for years to come.
On the eighth of February, 1843, “the Committee for building the new church in this parish, have the satisfaction of informing the parishioners, that the church is nearly completed,and will be opened for Divine service, on or before the first of May next,provided sufficient funds for that purpose are previously collected.” So, “the immediate aid of those persons who have not subscribed to this important undertaking” is solicited, “to defray the whole expense, for which a considerable sum is still required.”
But even St. James’s was not finished without a “compulsory levy;” for on the thirtieth of June, 1843, the committee report that after paying £10,000, other expenses had been incurred, and were about to be incurred, which they hoped to raise by subscription. No further subscriptions were forthcoming, however; and in August, 1844, the committee state to the vestry that £950 is still due; that the clock and organ were not subscribed for, as anticipated; and that there are other additional works estimated at £300 more; all of which they beg to transfer to the especial care of the ratepayers. These, as well as other sums, were paid out of the church-rate by order of the vestry.
“The churchwardens’ account for the year 1843–44” shews the “total expenditure for Saint James’s church, for the year ending April, 1844, to have, been £2,190 12s.5d., the whole of which, with the exception of £200, “the first annual payment from the pew-rents,” was paid by the Churchwardens out of the parish funds. This, however, was not all the Churchwardens paid towards St. James’s; for in “the church-rate account” for the ensuing year, the following item occurs, “January thirtieth, 1845, Paid Mr. Bishop, for organ at St. James’s Church, £497 12s.6d.” There are other items, too,—balance of architect’s commission, church plate, and printing—which bring the sum paid this year up to £753 8s.4d., over and above the ordinary disbursements, which are this year £100 more than the pew-rents paid to the churchwardens. Neither was this church, whichwas to have been built without“compulsory levy,” paid for yet; for in the next year’s account, we find a “Cross Wall” in the vaults paid for; roofing over the vestry room, at St. James’s church; building new porches to the lobby entrances; and the “Turret clock.” These four items amounted to £662 19s.3d., the ordinary expenses being increased by £246 14s.11d., above the receipts, for other church fittings. And on the twenty-fourth of December, 1847, there is another £100 paid for re-glazing the windows with ground-glass; so that before St. James’s was fairly done with, it had cost the rate-payers over and above all subscriptions, £3,850 at the least—to saynothing of interest of money borrowed, at a very high rate, to pay these sums.[151a]
“The Holy Double Trinity,” as I once heard it called by the showman, who pointed with his wand to the young lady with two triangles on her breast, who is perched with that ornament, or symbol, in full view of all who enter by the south door; her duplicate being in the same position over the northern entrance. But for this notification, this church might be taken to belong to saints of the masculine gender; the western door being decorated by a gentleman on either side; one with the cross-keys, the other with the cross-swords. But these Guardian Saints are not the only images set up for our love or hatred; confidence or fear; instruction or bamboozlement; on the walls of this church, or they would not be noticed here. Trinity, “the pet church of Paddington,” the church on which church-goers pride themselves as something that is worthy of this great and important parish, is in fact, garnished all over with images, or symbols, and may be considered a creditable mimick of antiquated masonry on a small scale. On this building, both architect and mason appear to have exhausted all the skill of their craft, to produce an edifice, which shall transport the sense of sight, if not the mind it influences, to those glorious middle ages, for the revival of which some few enthusiastic ladies and gentlemen of the nineteenth century are working so desperately. To be obliged to work with the materials of the nineteenth, must be a sad drawback on their enthusiasm. Theseartistsdevise all kind of means to give the charm of antiquity to their works, it is true; but there is an air of newness about Trinity, and such like buildings, which is any thing but pleasing, and which ill assorts with any notion of veneration. Some centuries hence, if Trinity does not share the fate of the Sheldon church, children may look on it with something like awe; and grown-up persons with pity for that generation, whose genius—able to make the lightning-force subservient to its will[151b]—able to contrive machines to carry the material form to which that genius is linked, sixty miles an hour with certainty and safety—able to raise structures which surpass in size and beauty, anything the genius of man ever before created, wasyet unable to erect a house in which to worship its God, except in mimickry of forms suitable to the intelligence of past and darker ages.[152a]
At a distance, in Trinity, we see fair proportions and elegance of form, pleasing to the eye of all who admire the architectural art; on closer inspection, nuns and monks, and bishops, and kings, and monsters with faces which disgrace humanity; and beasts so detestably ugly, or so ridiculously grotesque, that young and old are arrested in their progress, and compelled to ask the meaning of it all. I have asked many persons, but none of them, being either masons or priests, could tell. This, however, every sensible man is beginning to tell to his neighbour, and pretty plainly too, that no priest or mason shall drag him back to the decorations and deformities of the fourteenth century, of which Trinity is a sufficient example. “The Holy Blessed Trinity” is not understood when it is surrounded by an unintelligible mass of deformity; and that which has no meaning for the people, must be as repulsive in a material structure, as it is in a Divine Thought.
“Freemasons of the Church” do tell us, what those who are not freemasons, can easily imagine, viz., that many of the grotesque and disgusting gothic carvings, which still exist in and around the ancient churches, were placed there by monks, or monkish masons, as caricatures of their secular brethren, and others, who had offended them. Now, if the monsters with heads as large as life, who grin and gape with horrible contortions from the six pinnacles on each side of this church, are intended to be the monumental effigies of twelve of the preceding owners of the Paddington Estate, (those who have most grossly mismanaged and abused it,) let us be told so; and then I have no doubt some of the people of Paddington would enjoy the joke, as much as any Grand Master of the masonic craft; but it is really too bad to stick up unintelligible symbols, on and about that which is called a religious temple, and leave all the uninitiated to guess at their meaning. The days for such unenlightened and selfish craft are numbered; and the splitting of the foundation walls of Trinity, may be looked upon as an emblem of their fulfilment.[152b]The people must be taught; and that, too, withoutany previous oath-taking. Colleges, and crafts, if they are worth preserving, will endure without the pledges given to secrecy; if they are not, no preliminary swearing will enable them to maintain their ancient ascendancy. Priests and masons may fancy they still rule the world; and it may be that they do; but however much they may wish it, their reign will not be long, even if it is not now virtually ended. A third element has been admitted to power. People are teaching themselves the essentials of all government, and they must ultimately rule. Observers have long since discovered, that unfettered genius has done more for the world, than the most renowned systems; and they are no longer willing to assist in upholding those educational establishments, whose very foundations are laid in secrecy, cliquedom, and dogmata. To know what kingcraft can do for us, we may consult the history of our own James’s and Charles’s; to know what priestcraft has done for the world, we have only to read William Hewitt’s Popular History of it; and to prove what the masonic craft has not attempted to do, we have only to take a walk into “Milton’s Golden Lane,”[153]or any other of the many wretched lanes and alleys of this or any other large city. There is, however, an Immaterial Essence in this world of ours which no craft or cunningcan“put down;” and, fortunately for the world, it is notentirelyin the keeping of any craft.
The prelate who consecrated Trinity, is known to have been indulgent towards practices in the church, which had long since ceased to be observed. Reformation of some kind was found to be necessary, and practices distasteful to reformers, were introduced. None of those objectionable practices, however, were ever witnessedwithinany of the churches in Paddington; and this I look upon as an additional reason for inducing the people to ask the bishop, their appointed governor, to condescend to give them some satisfactory reason for the erection of these “ornaments,” which he has consecrated, and for which they have to pay. There is another course open to the bishop, which scarcely any one, with the exception of the architect, would be grieved by his adopting.
But to erect this structure, fitted, to all external appearance, only for the performance of the gorgeous histrionical ceremonies of the most depraved period of the Roman or Anglican churches, the people of Paddington have been, and still are, obliged to subscribe by “compulsory levy;” and having been thus made instrumental, willing or unwilling, in assisting toresuscitate the dry bones of a monster belonging to a former period, they were then asked, (like other people similarly situated) by their local governors, to assist them in laying the spectre that such follies as these had again presented to the mind of the English public.
And how; and at what cost was Trinity built?
In 1843, on the fourth of July, the Rev. Chairman of the vestry, informed that body, he had received a communication from the Rev. Mr. Miles, expressing his readiness to contribute £4000 towards the erection of an additional church in Paddington, upon a site already granted by the bishop and his lessees.
This, the third site, provided out of the four acres to be granted, according to the bishop’s last building Act, was adeep hole, which had been left at the point of junction of the Bishop’s-road with the Westbourn-terrace road; these roads having been raised by the Great Western Railway Company, according to agreement with the owners of the estate, when the railway bridges were built. So deep was this hole, and so unfitted was it for the site of a church, that the parishioners would have been money in pocket, if the vestry had politely thanked the bishop and his lessees for their kindness in granting it, and bought the land somewhere else. But then that would not have done for the bishop and his lessees. They knew, and the builders who took their land knew, the increased value a church would give to the neighbouring ground; and, as it had been planned that the church would be better here than elsewhere, here it must be, or no where; although the foundations did cost the parishioners above £2,000; and although another thousand “would not have been lavishly thrown away,had the proper authorities been sufficiently liberal in granting it!”
On the tenth of July, at an adjourned meeting of the vestry, a committee was appointed to take Mr. Miles’s letter into consideration, to confer with the bishop, and to report to the vestry thereon. The only other important business done at this meeting, was, to agree to borrow £2,000, on the security of the church-rates, instead of £1,700, as had been previously proposed. This was to be raised to pay the debts of St. James’s, and the other churches. On the twelfth of June, the Vestry had pledged themselves to raise £2,000 towards increased church-accommodation, if the church commissioners would but pay the £2,000 they had promised. On the eleventh of December, in the sameyear, after receiving the report of their committee, the vestry agree to increase this sum to £6,000; “which they presume will be sufficient for the erection of a suitable church, with Mr. Miles’s donation, and such other sums as may be raised by subscription, and obtained from the church commissioners.” And on the second of January, 1844, a committee was appointed, with full powers, to build the new church.
On the sixth of February, 1844, a letter was read from the church commissioners, consenting to make a grant of £1,000 towards the proposed new church; upon certain conditions therein mentioned.
On the fourth of March, the new church committee report “that they find from the specification of the architect, that the expenses of constructing the foundation, on the site allotted to the church, will be so great as to prevent the possibility of erecting a suitable edifice thereon for the sum at the disposal of the committee; and they therefore recommend that £2,500morebe borrowed.” On the ninth of March, it was resolved, that this further sum should be raised; and on the fifteenth of January, 1846, it was resolved, unanimously, by the Vestry, “That a sum of £13,000 should be raised under the provisions of the church building Acts,on the credit of the church-rate,for the erection of Trinity Church!”
To make assurance doubly sure, this sum was again voted towards the cost of building Trinity, on the twenty-sixth of March, 1846; and by the final report and statement of the committee appointed to build this church, dated twenty-ninth of March, 1847, we find the total cost of this building to have been £18,458 11s.3d.; and says that report—
“The church accommodates 1,582 persons; 982 in pews; 600 in free sittings.The Lord Bishop of London presented the font.The Rev. John Miles, the incumbent, presented the large stained glass window, and the encaustic tiles in the chancel.Henry Morris Kemshead, Esq. presented one of the stained glass windows in the chancel; the other three were by subscriptions from various persons.George Gutch, Esq. presented the dial, fixed in the gallery under the organ.Thomas Cundy, Esq., the architect, presented the carved stone altar piece.”[155]
“The church accommodates 1,582 persons; 982 in pews; 600 in free sittings.
The Lord Bishop of London presented the font.
The Rev. John Miles, the incumbent, presented the large stained glass window, and the encaustic tiles in the chancel.
Henry Morris Kemshead, Esq. presented one of the stained glass windows in the chancel; the other three were by subscriptions from various persons.
George Gutch, Esq. presented the dial, fixed in the gallery under the organ.
Thomas Cundy, Esq., the architect, presented the carved stone altar piece.”[155]
A substantial parsonage-house, built at the north-west corner of the piece of ground surrounding this church, is occupied by the minister, the Rev. Mr. Miles, who is said to have given, in addition to his other donations, £500 towards its erection.
The extreme liberality in the contributions of the present incumbent of this church must be properly appreciated, even by those who do not admire being charged with church-rates to make up a sufficient sum to build a place of worship, into which they are never likely to enter; and the greater part of the income from which has been previously secured on the minister, as a good investment for the capital he may have advanced—a plan of “getting up a church” now very much in fashion.
From 1841 to 1851, the population of Paddington increased on the average,above two thousand one hundred per annum; and the bishop’s rents increased in due proportion; but as the newcomers were almost all strangers to the parish, they had never, perhaps, heard one word of the History of the Paddington Estate. On this ignorance the owners of that estate must have relied, when they determined to saddle the rate-payers of Paddington with the expense of building and furnishing their churches, and with every other charge incidental to that Estate. But to enable the owners to carry out their project, the consent of the vestry of the parish must be first had and obtained; and to give this consent the vestry were not unwilling; for on the very day they voted away £13,000 for Trinity, they also bound themselves to raise, by rates and subscription,or by rates alone, £6,000 more for another church.[156]
The site for this church—a portion of the old reservoir,—had already been given up by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, to the bishop and his lessees, as agreed upon, and enacted, by the 7th and 8th Vic. cap. 30.
On the fifteenth of January, 1846, the vestry resolved, “thatit is expedient to build a church in Cambridge-place; and that a committee be appointed to consider the subject in all its bearings, and report thereon to the vestry.” This committee recommended that £4,000 should be raised by a loan on the church-rates towards the cost of this new building, the furniture, and fittings; that it hold 1,500 persons; and that the cost of the building should be limited to £6,000; £2,000 of which, they recommend, should be raised by subscription; but they recommend the works to be begun, when the subscriptions amount to £1,500; but not before. Their report was adopted by the vestry; it was at once resolved that the £4000 should be raised; that their old friends, the church commissioners, should be applied to for assistance; and that the vestry-clerk should write to the bishop of London, apprizing him of the day’s proceedings; requesting, at the same time, that directions may be given to have the site of the church conveyed in the usual manner.
All this was to be carried into effect by the Trinity Church Committee.
On the third of March, a letter was read from the Church Commissioners, expressing regret that the state of their funds and urgent claims from various other quarters, would not permit them to make any grant of money, this time, towards the proposed new church; but as no more of these public funds could be obtained, the bishop sends word he will give £500.
On the twenty-sixth of March, a special meeting of the vestry is held, to pass unanimously, three resolutions, to enable the vestrymen to charge the rates with £19,000, for building Trinity and this church; they appeal again to the Church Commissioners fora nominal grant“to establish the validity of their proceedings;” and, considering the good and pious object, for which the application is made, the commissioners relent, and grantone hundred pounds. After much difficulty £19,000, is at length borrowed. But one Assurance Office, of high respectability, refused to have anything to do with this loan, even after the lawyers had put the parish to the expense of £32 17s.10d.on account of it; £103 3s.being the amount of two other bills “for negotiating” this loan.[157]
But this sum was not enough to carry on the church account; another £1000 had to be borrowed of the banker, on the fourteenth of December, 1847; and above £100 interest was paid on that sum before the loan was returned. Some time after this, the committee report that the subscriptions for AllSaint’s Church amount to £1,635 2s.10d.; and that the cost of the building has been £7,434 18s.2d.
This church is built in the early pointed style, and its internal fittings and decorations are exceedingly plain. It is capable of holding 1,500 persons; 600 free seats, and 900 appropriated, or pew sittings.
The amount of church-rate,collectedfor nine years, ending April, 1852, was £20,574 3s.8d.Of this there was “balance in hand of £1,607 15s.2d.;” but a debt of £14,500 was owing for churches which had been built. This debt is bearing interest at the rate of four-and-a-half per cent; and £900 is paid off annually. So that these four churches will have cost the rate-payers of Paddington upwards of £40,000, over and above all the sums given by the Church Commissioners, Metropolitan Committee, bishop and lessees, all Parliamentary provision of the sites, and all private subscriptions; and this sum of money, with upwards of £10,000 paid for St Mary’s, and the church-yard, will have been raised by “compulsory levy,” from rate-payers of all denominations; while the receipts of “the rectorial and other lands” are quietly pocketed by the rector and his lessees!
But I have heard rate-payers told, as a great consolation, “that the churches of Paddington cost nothing in comparison to the churches of Marylebone.” This however, may not be very consoling to those who know the cost of the following:—
Wesleyan Metropolitan Chapels, which have been recently built.“Poplar chapel is of the decorative style, 105 feet long, by 60 feet wide; is built of Kentish Rag Stone, with Caen Stone dressings; will seat 1,500 persons; and cost about £4,000.The New North-road Chapel, Hoxton, is Anglo-Norman, in style; is 35 feet long, including the vestries, by 52 feet wide; built of Brick and Bath Stone; will accommodate 1,200 persons; and cost £3,700.The Chapel of St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell, is built of Brick and Bath Stone; 70 feet long by 60 feet wide; will accommodate 1,300 persons; has a school-room, &c., and cost £4,000.Jewin-street Chapel, is built in the Early English style; is 68 feet by 52 feet; seats 1,100 persons; is built of White Brick and Bath Stone; and cost £2,700.The Islington Chapel, in the Liverpool road, measures 90 feet long by 54 feet wide; and will accommodate 1,500 persons.It is built of Kentish Rag and Bath Stone; is in the decorated style and cost about £6,000.”[159]
Wesleyan Metropolitan Chapels, which have been recently built.
“Poplar chapel is of the decorative style, 105 feet long, by 60 feet wide; is built of Kentish Rag Stone, with Caen Stone dressings; will seat 1,500 persons; and cost about £4,000.
The New North-road Chapel, Hoxton, is Anglo-Norman, in style; is 35 feet long, including the vestries, by 52 feet wide; built of Brick and Bath Stone; will accommodate 1,200 persons; and cost £3,700.
The Chapel of St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell, is built of Brick and Bath Stone; 70 feet long by 60 feet wide; will accommodate 1,300 persons; has a school-room, &c., and cost £4,000.
Jewin-street Chapel, is built in the Early English style; is 68 feet by 52 feet; seats 1,100 persons; is built of White Brick and Bath Stone; and cost £2,700.
The Islington Chapel, in the Liverpool road, measures 90 feet long by 54 feet wide; and will accommodate 1,500 persons.It is built of Kentish Rag and Bath Stone; is in the decorated style and cost about £6,000.”[159]
But the actual cost of the churches of Paddington, is not the whole of the evil, though, considering all the circumstances, this is sufficiently oppressive. These churches, after all, are not free: pew-rents are obliged to be taken for the support of the ministers; the poor parishioners have less than one-third of the room allotted to them, and a considerable portion of this space is reserved for the best singers, and most showy scholars of the church schools.
And after all this; after all the money raised “by compulsory levy” to build, furnish, ornament and decorate; and after all the pew-rents are paid; these churches do not pay their own ordinary expenses. No; not after there is added to this income the portion of the burial-fees received by the churchwardens; but this source of income, which has averaged for many years more than £350 per annum, must soon cease. So that dissenters and others, who reside even on a bishop’s estate, have a fair prospect of being called on to pay a church-rate, after all the churches which the rate-payers have built, shall have been paid for.
Towards defraying these ordinary expenses of the churches, the ministers of Trinity, and All Saints, contribute fifteen per cent. of the pew-rents received by them; the minister of St. James’s £200 per annum, the stipend set aside for the whole cure; the minister of St. John’s,nil. While for the last three or four years the pew-rents of St. Mary’s have more than met the ordinary expenses of that church; although there have been two Services performed in it daily during that period. And “increased church accommodation is loudly called for in Paddington!” How will the bishop of London, and his lessees,nowanswer to that call? Will the rate-payers of Paddington be left to answer it? Or, will the vestry of this parish, elected under the provisions of Sturges Bourne’s Act, be allowed, of their own mere motion, (without any reference to the rate-payer, or without any efficient representation of the case “in all its bearings,” to the bishop and his lessees), to take upon themselves to spend more of the rate-payers’ property? We shall see.
Whatcanbe done by those who care one pin about preserving a state-church; by those who have ground-rents to preserve, and lands and houses to be benefitted by offering to in-coming tenants church accommodation, we have already seen.But another example of voluntary church-building and self-support exists in this parish.
Mr. B. Macaulay tell us, when speaking of the revenues of the State, “experience has fully proved that the voluntary liberality of individuals, even in times of the greatest excitement, is a poor financial resource when compared with severe and methodical taxation, which, presses on the willing and unwilling alike.” Those who govern the state-church, have had experience on this head; and without stopping “voluntary liberality” they deem it necessary, so long as a state-religion is upheld, to use “severe and methodical taxation;” and they employ all the powers the law allows them, to compel the unwilling, as well as the willing, to pay their appointed share of the particular tax raised for its requirements. But it is questioned by some most sincere and learned churchmen, whether this is good policy; whether the people love the church any better for being obliged to pay church-rates, when they see how the property claimed by the church is apportioned; and where they see, as in this parish, church property, much more than sufficient to supply their religious requirements, used, not for their benefit, as it was originally intended, but for individual advantage.