The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-12 00:00:00

CLERKENWELL CHURCHES.

Lord KING stated, that he had in his hand a petition
from the churchwardens, and others, of the parish of St.
James, Clerkenwell, to which he begged leave to call their
Lordships' attention before they proceeded to the order of
the day on the Church Building Bill. The petitioners
complained of the conduct of the Commissioners for the
building of new churches, in inflicting, on the parish a new
church, which was quite uncalled for and unnecessary.
Of course, he had no other information on the subject
than what lie derived from others; but the petitioners
stated, that there were already in the parish three churches,
in each of which there were a number of seats unlet. In
St. James's church there were 429 seats unlet ; in Pen-
tonville chapel, 203 unlet„ and in St. John's church, 150
unlet; making in all, 762 seats unlet. The churchwar-
dens of St. James's had objected to the building of the
last new church, and they were, therefore, much surprised
when they found that the Commissioners had begun to
build another, and they remonstrated against it without
effect. In another parish in the neighbourhood, they had
in the same manner begun to build a new church, and
the people of that pariah remonstrated, and the building
in that instance was stopped ; and yet the petitioners said,
that when they applied to the Commissioners and remon-
strated, their application was treated with contempt—
that was what they stated. There were certain cir-
cumstances likewise to be attended to ; for in one of
these churches there was a very popular preacher, and a
greater number of people attended in consequence—some
of them being from the neighbouring parishes, and yet,
notwithstanding this, there were a number of seats unlet.
The Commissioners proceeded on the principle of the
amount of population, but that was a very uncertain and
precarious criterion, for a great portion of the population
might be Dissenters. And then the parish was already at
an enormous expence—no less than 2,0001. annually on
account of the churches. In the new churches, the gross
amount of the pew rents !vent to the preacher, and the
parish was left to pay the sexton's salary, and otherinci-
dental expences. That really appeared net to be just, for
it ought to be the nett produce of the pew rents, and
not the gross amount, that should be given to the preacher.
The petitioners stated, that they had expended 3,0001.
on the decorations of the last built new church of St.
Mark's, and that now there was very great difficulty in

raising the poor rates, and were unwilling to be loaded
with the additional expellee on account of a new church
when it was not necessary. The petitioners stated that
they had the strongest desire to promote the interests of
morality and religion, and that they only objected to the
other church because it was unnecessary. The petition
was signed with about 1,800 names, and the petitioners
prayed relief in this matter.
The Bishop of LONDON thought himself called upon to
say a few words on this subject, as the parish was in his
diocese. The population of that parish was 52,000, and if
the Commissioners did, in building the new churches, act
on the principle of population, they did so by the direction
of the Legislature ; and if there was any thing erroneous
in it, they were not in fault. He did not know whether
any remonstrance had been made by the petitioners against
the building of St. Mark's church ; but, were he to
judge from circumstances, he should say that the remon-
strance, if made, could not have been very strong : for they
had, as they rightly stated, expended 3,0001. on the deco-
rations of that church, which was more than was required.
If in some of the churches the seats were not all occupies!,
it was, perhaps, owing to some temporary circumstances ;
for that of St. Mark, as soon as it was built, was filled to
overflowing. Soon after, a representation was made by
many respectable inhabitants of the parish to the Commis-
sioners, that there was still great need of another church for
the accommodation of those who resided about Battle-
bridge ; a circumstance which was sufficiently obvious,
and this representation was accompanied with the offer of
a site for another chapel. The Commissioners were, at
the time, rather straitened for funds, but they did, in the
execution of what they considered to be their duty, make
preparations for erecting a cheap chapel for the accommo-
dation of the poor. All this was well known, and yet no
remonstrance had been made till the labourers had been
engaged, and the work, in fact, been begun. It was
true that then a remonstrance was sent to him, which he
forwarded to the Commissioners, and it was then repre-
sented to the parties that they did come too late, but
the remonstrance was not treated with disrespect. The
Noble Baron had stated the facts in a very temperate
manner, and no blame could attach to him or to the
petitioners for bringing forward their complaints. The
Commissioners, however, did think it their duty to
provide, as far as their funds allowed, churches for the
accommodation of the whole of the population if they chose
to attend ; and the objections probably did not come so
much from the petitioners, who, he believed, were worthy
persons, as from others of a different description.
Lord KENYON begged permission to say a few words
on this subject, as he happened to be present on Tuesday
last, at a meeting then held by the Commissioners, when
this subject was under discussion. The grievance was
certainly a small one, for the parish was not called upon
to pay one farthing towards the building of this chapel ;
and if all the seats in the churches already built were not
taken, it was still a great object to give a❑ opportunity to
attend to those who chose to do so. It ought to be ob-
served, that accommodation already existed only for 4,000
out of a population for 52,000, and this additional chapel
would only accommodate 1,200 more ; and the whole ac-
commodation would still be rather below the mark. As
to the expense, if the petitioners had thought the expenses
extravagant, they would not have laid out so much on the
decoration of St. Mark's.

Lord KING—The petitioners did not object to a pro-
per expense, and therefore they had laid out the 3,0001. on
the decoration of St. Mark's, since, as the thing was to be
done at all, it was reckoned desirable to do it handsomely.
But what they complained of was, that when they were
already at an expense of 2,0001. a year fur the parish
churches, they were to be saddled with an additional and
uctiece,sary expense. There was no denial of the correct-
ness of their statement, that in the existing churches there
were 762 seats unengaged.

The petition was laid on the table.
The Bishop of LONDON moved that the report of th•
New Churches' Bill be now received. _ _

It was received accordingly, and the third reading was
fixed for Monday.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tio❑ from a place in Devonshire, praying for an alteration
in the tithe system.
PRINTED CALICO DUTIES.

Lord AUCKLAND moved the second reading of the
Printed Calico Duties' Bill. He was not aware that there
was any objection to this Bill, but if there was to be any
discussion upon it, the subject might be taken up on Mon-
day. In the mean time, he hoped that their Lordships
would allow the Bill to be read a second time now, as it
was highly desirable that there should be no delay in passing
the measure if it was to be passed, for there were no less
than 200,000 workmen and their families whose labours
were suspended t,ll their Lordships' opinion on the Bill
should be given.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered for a third
reading on Monday.
The Mutiny Bill and Scotch Creditors' Bill were com-
mitted.—Report on Monday.
Adjourned tilt Monday.