The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-10 00:00:00

We, your Majesty's Commissioners
appointed
" to inquire into the practicability and mode of sub-
dividing into distinct and independent parishes, for
all ecclesiastical purposes, all the densely-peopled
parishes in England and Wales, in such manner that
the population of each, except in particular cases, at
our discretion, shall 'not exceed 4,000 souls," have
instituted an extensive inquiry, and are
acquiring
much valuable information respecting those parishes
and their extensive subdivisions.
We have also examined several witnesses for the
purpose of ascertaining" the state of the
law as ap-
plicable to these subdivisions, of which there are now
many kinds, differing in their legal character and
circumstances. Though we cannot hope, without
much more information than we at present possess,
and very careful deliberation, to present to your
Majesty a full report, we think it adviiable to state
without delay our opinions on some important points,
respecting which we are already agreed.
We may, as a preliminary observation,
state that
we find large and extensive. powers, relative to the-
division and subdivision of parishes for ecclesiastical
purposes, already vested in the Church Building
Commissioners ; but we consider the law at present
very defective, with respect to many important points
connected with church extension, and with that im-
proved pastoral superintendence which it was the
object of the church building Acts to effect. It is
most desirable that those-Acts, now seventeen in
number, should be consolidated, and that the various
enactments scattered through them shoUld be made
consistent with one another.
We understand the terms of your Majesty's Com-
mission as directing our inquiry to the expediency of
giving a completely parochial character, for all
ecclesiastical purposes, to every division or subdivision
of a parish, and of making every such division and
subdivision, with its church and minister, in all
respects independent of the original parish ; and we
conceive it to be our duty to consider this question
with reference to existing divisions and subdivisions,
as well as to those which may be made hereafter.
With regard to the question of division, the
opinion we hare formed is strongly in
favour of entire independence, as a general
principle. There are doubtless cases in which,
from peculiar circumstances, it may be desirable to
have chapels of ease served by licensed curates, the
incumbent of the mother church being in every such
case incumbent also of the chapel of ease ; but we re-
commend that there should be no intermediate state
between this entire subordination to the incumbent of
the mother church and complete separation and inde-
dendence.

One of the chief obstacles in the way of carry-
ing out the principle, of complete separation is
the difficulty of making an adequate provision
for the incumbents of newly-formed parishes.
We are not yet prepared to report fully on this
subject; hut in connexion with it we desire to offer
the following suggestions : With respect to pew
rents, we are aware that various and conflicting
opinions exist as to the expediency of recognizing
by law the right of receiving money for pews or
sittings in churches. This, however, has
already been done in the church building
Acts ; and, independently of the great practical diffi-
culty of abolishing so large a source of ecclesiastical
revenue, we are of opinion that there are other rea-
sons in favour of the continuance of the system, and
that it may be so regulated as not only not to exclude
the poorer classes, but, in some cases, to be made the
means of encouraging many to frequent the church,
who now seldom attend public worship.
Although it is, no doubt, desirable that an incum-
bent should derive his income from endowment rather
than from pew rents, and that all sittings in church
should be free, it must be borne in mind that in
many instances, especially in the case of additional
churches, the income depends chiefly, if not entirely,
on that source, and that pew rents are readily paid by.
persons who would not contribute to the support
of the church in any other way to the same
extent, and it is also to be considered that many per-
sons in comparatively humble life gladly pay a mo-
derate rent for the privilege of occupying a perma-
nent sittting. The Church Building Commissioners
are empowered to fix a scale of pew rents, whenever
they have contributed to build the church, but not
otherwise, except in the case of a church built under
the Private Patronage Act.,(l and 2 William IV. c.
38), where such power is vested by the church
building Acts in the Church Building Commissioners,
or by their direction in the trustees of a church built
under that statute ; and with these exceptions no
such power is vested by the church building Acts in
any other party. The scale of pew rents established
by the Commissioners may afterwards be revised
under certain conditions, but the number of free
sittings originally settled is incapable of alteration,
although experience may demonstrate to the convic-
tion of all parties that a change is desirable.
We are of opinion that care should be taken to
provide a due proportion of sittings, at mphrate
rents, for persons of the middle or lower classes, and
that free seats should be appropriated to those who
cannot afford any payment, but whose regularity of
attendance makes it desirable that certain specified
sittings should be appropriated for their use. We
also think it desirable that as little external difference
as possible should be made between rented and free
seats.

We also recommend that upon any question arising
as to the appropriation or occupancy of sittings in any
church or chapel, the Bishop should be empowered to
issue a commission to the archdeacon, rural dean, or
one of the neighbouring clergy, a clergyman nominated
by the incumbent, and a layman chosen by the
churchwardens ; and that the decision of these com-
missioners, if approved by the bishop upon consulta-
tion with his chancellor, should be final.
We recommend that the powers of the Church
Building Commissioners, with respect to fixing and
altering a scale of pew rents, should be enlarged.
Doubts have arisen on an important point connected
with the right of occupying pews. It is contended
that the inhabitants of district parishes may not merely
continue to occupy pews and sittings, but even have
pews and sittings assigned to them, in the mother
church, at the end of twenty years, although they
shall then have become exempt from the liability
to repair it. We are of opinion that after the
formation of a district no fresh assignment of sit-
tings in the mother church should be made to inha-
bitants of the new district. We have no hesitation in
expressing our opinion that all fees and offerings
arising within each ecclesiastical division should as
soon as possible be assigned to the incumbent of that
division. This general rule, however, cannot be
fairly carried into effect without compensating the
existing incumbent of the mother church, to whom
these dues have been reserved, and who depends upon
them as a portion of his perhaps scanty income; and,
in the case of a living dependent almost entirely upon
fees, the successor might require the same protection.
We find that the principle of making compensation in
such cases has been acted upon to a considerable
extent by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for
England.

The principle of assigning patronage in return for
endowment appears to have been acted upon from the
o .and it was
recognisedcinin enenceminttheofAocutr palarnodch2iawl
islylisatmenllv•
, c. 38, and
still more fully in the Act 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 37, s.
20 (generally known as Sir R. Peel's Act), which
provides that if any person shall offer a benefaction
deemed sufficient by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
for England, he may, upon the recommendation of the
Commissioners and by an order of your Majesty in
Council, be made patron of any new district or parish
constituted under that Act.

We are of opinion that the provisions of the Act 1
of the
andwit
h 2
aW
vi li lei awm
tleV.t,
hce. 3f
a 8
r,
tahreer
encouragement capable o f improvement,
erection and endowment of new churches by private
persons.

With respect ,to the patronage of district parish
churches, the framers of the Act 58 George 111., c.
45, appear scarcely to have paid sufficient attention
to the ground on which alone a right of patronage
should be given ; they provided that the patron of
the mother church should, in all cases, become patron
ofthedistric
of patronage iny,
district parish arishchurcha, in suchare.Weof opinion
that the right
cases,
with
the consent of certain parties, be properly assigned to
any individual who shall contribute an adequate en-
dowment. Similar arrangements as to patronage
might be applied to some of the numerous district
churches and chapelries, of which the incumbent of
the mother church has already been made the patron,
without having endowed them; the patronage, how-
ever, not being changed until the next avoidance of
the mother church. _ . _

Under the 15th section of the Act 3 George IV.,
c. 72, a provision is made, empowering incumbents,
,trustees, and 'others, with the consent of the bishop,
patron, and incumbent, and with the sanction of the
'Church Building Commissioners, to surrender the
right of patronage of any church or benefiw in fa-
vour of any corporate body or person, or to make any
agreement as to its endowment, for the express pur-
pose of improving, the parochial system by the eccle-
siastical division of the parish. By the Act 8 and 0