The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-11 00:00:00

ACCOMMODATION-THE POOR

MAN'S CHURCH.

TO THE EDITO-1? OF THE SUN.

SIR,— I believe that a very general outcry in the Church
of England "as by law established," is—" The Church is in
danger." It would really be useful to its interests if it were so
much in danger as to teach its managers the Christian virtue
of common civility. How a set of selfish males and females,
clad in externals which give reason to believe that they are of
the respectable and educated ranks of life, forsooth, can sit
during the whole Church service, and apathetically gaze upon
a fellow-Christian standing in their passage for the whole pe-
riod of that service and sermon without exhibiting the smallest
indication of a wish to accommodate a stranger, I will net try
to examine. The Church of England is, I believe, the only
Church in Europe where such an exhibition would be tole-
rated as I shall now describe. On Sunday last I had
occasion to be professionally in the vicinity of Mary-
lebone Parish Church, and entered, expecting the same
courtesy (willing to pay for it, as I find the custom is)
as I hope every stranger meets in this parish, but I was
mistaken. Whether the pexv.opener has very lately (for it
must be very lately if it is so) been prevented from selling
her means of accommodation, or whether the Churchwardens
are asleep on their posts, I know not, but I saw one pew en-
tirely empty near where I was standing, and others with only
a luxuriously nodding few in them, while I stood during the
whole of the service a butt for the pointed stare of the pew-
openers.

Were a contrast required to this disgusting practice, I might
paint to the delicate, unassuming attention shown in Dr. Hol-
loway's Chapel, London-street, where the pew-opener, being
offered a gratuity, refused it, with " Thank you, Sir, I am• for-
bidden to take it." Again, the Whitfield Chapel, Tottenham-
court-road : when was a stranger seen standing in its passages
when its pews were but half-filled ? At St. Giles's Church I
observe much attention is paid to seating strangers; also at
St. Dunstan's, Fleet-street, St. Mary's, Strand, &c.
Do not suppose that the writer of this is some Roman Ca-
tholic, complaining for party purposes. No, I was bred i,s the
doctrines of the Protestant Church, and revere its tenets ; I
therefore conceive myself entitled to assert the fact as it exists.
I will not now trespass any further on your valuable space,
Mr. Editor, but briefly refer to the habitually dogged, hoggish
insolence of some of the menials employed during divine ser.
vice in Westminster Abbey, and to the shameful fact of a great
part of the congregation in that place of worship (amongst
whom I observed delicate females and children) being seated
with nothing under their wet feet but the cold, tesselated,
marble pavement. I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,
WM. WILSON, Surgeon.
55, Upper Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square.

THE POOR. LAWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

confidently trust to the impartiality for which I have
always given you credit, for your insertion of the following.
For a series of years I have agreed with you to the full in al-
most every point, except your support of the new Poor-law—
feelin sure that there is a large body of your readers and
friends' in the same predicament; giving you, however, credit
for fair and humane intentions, or we should neither read nor
address you.

Whilst I approve your zeal, I scarcely thought the charge
about " child-murder " worth answering. Whoever told that
to Mr. Stephens—who, however intemperate and injudicious,
appears to be an " honest" man—either was absurdly imposed
upon, or told a wilful falsehood. No one in England would
dare recommend open and " technical" murder, whether he
were a Poor-law official, or an:opponent of the " Ten-hours'
Bill." No doubt separation of natural ties, degradation, hard
work, ronfinement, and poor diet, may lead to as virtual mur-
ders as if they were effected by public execution. And there
is no doubt now, and I am sure there will be none hereafter,
that thousands of lives have yearly been brought to a close by
the new Poor-law. But, Sir, I confess that it deeply moved
—not my " bile," but my " sorrow," to see you call the Com-
missioners " humane" men ! Why, Sir, until very lately, at
any rate, they would scarcely have thanked you for this mode
of defence. Humanity was a thing with which they desired
to have nothing to do. Unbending, and far more than kingly
supremacy, was the attribute they claimed. Have they not
in every instance refused requests of mitigation and indulgence
by Boards of Guardians, even so lately as last Chrismas-day,
forbidding (at Gloucester) a dinner to the poor—a thing
which, whilst it is almost unimaginable in stoicality and
heartlessness in England, speaks " libraries" for the hearts of
the originators. Did not one of their most favourite Assist-
ants say to the inhabitants of a large metropolitan parish,
" You must have no pity or feeling for any one I". lam not
using the language of declamation, but appealing to facts.
It is possible that, now they see the heart of the nation is
roused, they may from policy simulate, or actually use a little
lidding. But, Sir, let me candidly ask you, though you
may still differ with us, would you advise us, " retaining our
opinions," to trust or give way to them—to pull down the
barriers of humanity we are raising against their experienced
despotism, and once more trust the poor in their power? I
cannot think you would. I will be fair—for, like you, I pre.
fer candour. I will not deny that they may have what they
consider a conscientious adherence to a system (though as
much might be said for an Inquisition, or a Nicholas of Rus-
sia), but that system excludes " humanity."
Yours respectfully,
AN OLD READER AND WELL-WISHER.
Jan. 10, 1828.
Mr. Mott, St. George's, Southwark.