.<-C,y^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^a?f*V. *c<r*£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■■^(^m:-:
 
 THE DIFFICULTIES <■ ' 
 
 OF 
 
 CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 DIOCESE OF LONDON, 
 
 CONSIDERED IN A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED, BY PERMISSION, TO THE RIGHT HON. AND RIGHT REV. THE 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF LONDON. 
 
 BY A LAY-MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LONDON 
 DIOCESAN CHURCH BUILDING SOCIETY, 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 " REMARKS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE METROPOLIS 
 CHURCHES FUND; 18i53." 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. 
 
 1859.
 
 LONDON : 
 «ILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 8fc. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 As a member of the Committee of tlie London 
 Diocesan Churcli Building Society, I attended, by your Lord- 
 ship's invitation, the meeting held on the 8tli of July last 
 at London House, to consider " the present condition of large 
 " portions of this Diocese, — the inadequacy of the means yet 
 " provided for meeting the existing evils, — and the steps to bo 
 "taken for arousing a general interest in the subject among 
 "all classes of society." Although I took no part in the 
 discussion, I listened attentively to the statements and sug- 
 gestions of the various speakers ; and I now beg permission 
 to lay before your Lordship a few observations on this 
 important subject. 
 
 It is quite imnecessary to dwell upon the existence of 
 spiritual destitution in the Diocese of London. Although tho 
 whole Diocese is divided, for spiritual purposes, into Parishes 
 and Districts, the arrangement is, in numerous cases, little 
 more than nominal ; the continual and unceasing flow of 
 popidation to the Metropolis, in addition to the increase of 
 births over deaths, having rendered the present parochial 
 provision utterly inadequate, and leaving no alternative but 
 further subdivision with a proportionate increase of churches 
 and clergymen. The process of subdivision has, indeed, been 
 carried on from time to time for many years past ; new 
 churches have been built, and additional clergymen have 
 
 A 2
 
 4 DIFFICULTIES OF CItTTKCTI EXTENSION 
 
 undertaken the pastoral charge connected with them. But 
 every inquiry which is instituted, — whether by the Govern- 
 ment, the Legishiture, or the authorities of the Church, — 
 proves convincingly, that the increase of population in many 
 of the Metropolitan Parishes so far outruns these efforts, that, 
 unless more active and vigorous measures be taken, large 
 portions of the poorer inhabitants must be left unattended to, 
 and deprived of the spiritual advantages which our Parochial 
 System was intended to confer. 
 
 The sources from which funds for Church Extension in the 
 Diocese have hitherto been supplied have been the Par- 
 liamentary Grants of 1818 and 1824, and volimtary con- 
 tributions. But, considering that Government has of late 
 years uniformly discouraged any further applications to 
 Parliament, with one exception which will be afterwards 
 adverted to, and looking to the fact, that the recent Com- 
 mittee in the House of Lords on Spiritual Destitution was 
 only granted to the Bishop of Exeter on the understanding 
 that no public money was to be asked for, it is clear that the 
 Voluntary System now forms our principal resource. 
 
 Large as is the expenditure involved in carrying on to 
 completion a scheme of Church Extension, adequate to the 
 wants of the Diocese of London, the property possessed by 
 the inhabitants is in the aggregate so vast, that there ought 
 not to be any serious difficidty in raising the sums required. 
 Whether we regard the City of London, the seat of probably 
 the wealthiest trading community in the globe, — or the 
 western districts of the Metropolis, the residence of the 
 Court, the Nobility, and the wealthier members of the middle 
 classes of society, — or the suburbs, thickly studded wdth villa 
 residences, testifying to the easy circumstances of their 
 occupants, — or the more rural parts of the County of Mid- 
 dlesex, inhabited by many in the higher and middle ranks of 
 society, whom the vicinity of the Capital has attracted to 
 take up their residence within its limits, — it is equally 
 evident, that the Diocese contains a very numerous body of 
 
 , UIUC '
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. O 
 
 Churchmen, from whom large and liberal help might fairly 
 be expected ^ 
 
 To what then may the failure in the development of these 
 resources be attributed ? The following appear to me to be 
 the principal causes : — 
 
 1. The difficulties inherent in the Voluntary System. 
 
 2. Yague and unsettled notions as to individual respon- 
 sibility with regard to Church Extension. 
 
 3. The distraction occasioned by circumstances peculiar to 
 the Metropolis, as the Capital of a great Empire. 
 
 4. Imperfect organization of the Diocesan Church Build- 
 ing Society. 
 
 1. From the nature of the Voluntary System the area 
 of contributors to Church Extension is limited. Except to 
 the comparatively few, who, as landlords engaged in building 
 speculations, consider their pecuniary interest advanced by 
 its encouragement, the object presents itself as one purely 
 religious. As a consequence, it is chiefly to those who value 
 religious privileges, and avail themselves of religious ordi- 
 nances, that application for contributions can be made with any 
 hope of success. The labour also of working the Voluntary 
 System upon a large scale is excessive. The judgment must 
 be convinced and the will moved. To repeat again and again 
 
 ' The following statement of the anmial value of Real Property in the Diocese 
 as rated to the property tax under Schodido A, is derived from a Return to the 
 House of Commons, moved for by Mr. Bright, and dated March D, 185!) : — ■ 
 
 City of London £2,090,779 
 
 City of Westminster 2,020,594 
 
 Borough of Finsbury 1,904,039 
 
 Borough of Marylebone 5,917,009 
 
 Borough of Tower Hamlets 2,215,«09 
 
 Borough of Greenwich 420,743 
 
 County of Middlesex 1,010,405 
 
 16,791,438 
 
 The Return shows the rental only of the Diocese. But, from the proportion 
 which rent ordinarily bears to other expenditure, some estimate may be formed of 
 the total income of the inhabitants.
 
 6 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 the process necessary to attain these results vnth. individuals, 
 or small assemblages of indi\dduals, is a wearisome and almost 
 endless task. And, as every step in the work of permanent 
 Church Extension involves large expenditure, its prosecution 
 under the Yolimtary System becomes on this ground also a 
 work of no ordinary difficulty. 
 
 2. Another hindrance is presented by the unsettled state of 
 opinion among Churchmen, both as to the policy of Church 
 Extension, and the duty of individuals with regard to it. 
 That the provision for the spiritual wants of a popidation 
 should bear a certain proportion, modified in particular cases 
 by local circumstances, to the numbers of those whom it is 
 intended to benefit, — and that it is the duty of the members 
 of a Christian Church, who have received from their fore- 
 fathers a settled system of parochial ministrations, to hand 
 doAvn that system, not only unimpaired, but adapted to the 
 wants of their own day and generation, — are propositions 
 which would seem to be incontrovertible. Yet in practice it 
 is foimd that the efibrts of promoters of Church Extension 
 are continually checked by the denial, even in influential 
 quarters, of the necessity for exertion in this direction ; the 
 time for action is lost in argument and controversy ; and 
 indifference, inaction, and even opposition, are engendered as 
 the rcsidt. Doubts, again, exist as to the quarter in which 
 individual responsibility rests. It is generally held in the 
 abstract, that residence, or the possession of lands or houses, 
 in a particular Parish and Diocese creates the tie of bro- 
 therhood, and gives to that Parish and Diocese a special 
 claim upon their inhabitants for assistance. But when this 
 principle is sought to be applied practically, it is found that 
 even wcU-disposcd individuals dispute its cogency in their own 
 case. Among the higher classes, the claims of tenantry 
 in the country are put forward as a ground of exemption ; 
 men of business dispute the double obligation both to the 
 Parish in which they reside, and to that in which they 
 carry on their commercial pursuits ; while those who dpcudv
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. / 
 
 lodgings consider the want of a settled residence as neu- 
 tralizing the demand which might otherwise be made upon 
 them. And thus many withhold their contributions, believing 
 that no particular liability rests upon themselves. 
 
 3. Another obstacle is the distraction incident to London 
 as the Capital of the Empire. It is deeply to be regretted, 
 that, while the spiritual wants of portions of the Diocese are 
 so great, circumstances of a peculiar character prevent that 
 concentration of attention upon it, which is indispensable, if 
 those wants are to be effectually supplied. Neither mind nor 
 money are at the service of the London population in any 
 adequate degree. The sympathies of the most influential 
 inhabitants are imperial, not local. The Diocesan element is 
 to a large extent overwhelmed and neutralized by more 
 general interests. Nor is this disadvantage of a temporary 
 or ephemeral character. AYhile London continues to be the 
 seat of the Legislature, the Government, and the higher Law 
 Courts, — the great centre of all that is pre-eminent in art, 
 in science, in literature, and in the lighter departments of 
 amusement and dissipation, — and, above all, the head- 
 quarters of innumerable Societies for religious and bene- 
 volent purposes, of a general and diffusive character, — so 
 long will extreme difficulty be experienced in doing justice 
 to its own particular requirements, and a competing struggle 
 for attention and sympathy, on behalf of its own popidation, 
 will have to be maintained. 
 
 4. In order to cope successfully in the Diocese of London 
 Avith the difficulties of conducting religious undertakings 
 under a system of contributions purely voluntary, the most 
 perfect machinery which the principle of Association affords 
 ought to be employed. But it can scarcely be said that the 
 London Diocesan Church Building Society has yet attained 
 that character. Established in 1854 as a re-organization of 
 the Metropolis Churches Fund on a permanent footing, it is 
 still in the early stages of its existence ; and its course has 
 been, to a great extent, experimental and tentative. T'^ "
 
 8 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 Metropolis Churclies Fund was founded in 1836 for the 
 special object of building fifty additional cliurclies. A very 
 large fund was collected, and in three or four years Bishop 
 Blomfield had the gratification of seeing his way to the 
 accomplishment of what was at first considered as his too 
 sanguine proposal. In 1839, the general scheme was fol- 
 lowed by the Bethnal Green Churches Fund, which was 
 intended not only to supply that large and populous parish 
 with ten additional churches, parsonage-houses, and schools, 
 but also to serve as a model of Church Extension for other 
 destitute parishes of the Metropolis. Under the united and 
 energetic efibrts of the Bishop and Mr. W. Cotton, this 
 scheme also had advanced, by 1845, far towards its accom- 
 plishment. But, although other parishes, such as Shore- 
 ditch, Stepney, Clerkenwell, &c., equally required some 
 special scheme in order to supply their wants, the example 
 was not followed, except in two instances. The St. Pancras 
 Church Extension Fund was foimded in 1842, for the pur- 
 pose of assisting local schemes of Church Extension, by col- 
 lecting funds in other parts of that extensive and populous 
 parish ; and fifteen years later, in 1857, the Islington Church 
 Extension Society was established, for the specific purpose of 
 building ten additional churches in that parish. From 1845 
 to 1853 contributions to the Metropolis Chm'ches Fund 
 gradually slackened, until at length it ceased to be regarded 
 as one of the institutions of the Diocese, and might be pro- 
 nounced, for practical jDurposes, as all but defunct ^ In the 
 mean time the census of 1851 had revealed the increase of the 
 metropolitan population since 1841, by 560,000 souls, and the 
 renewal of past eflforts on a somewhat similar scale had been 
 shown to be indispensable. The Metropolis Churches Fund 
 was, therefore, reconstituted as a permanent Diocesan So- 
 ciety, in the hope that its annual Appeals and Reports woidd 
 
 ^ The number of donors in the four years, 184!) — 1853, was thirty-five only, 
 and of annual subscribers three.
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 9 
 
 make known among the Churchmen of the Diocese the 
 pressing nature of its wants, and afibrd them facilities for 
 contributing to their relief. The improvements which expe- 
 rience had showai to be desirable in the plan of conducting 
 Church Extension operations were adopted ; other sugges- 
 tions have also since been acted on ; and the London Diocesan 
 Church Building Society may now fairly be considered to 
 present a very complete scheme of Church Extension. Its 
 grants towards the stipend of a Missionary Curate in dis- 
 tricts where a new church is to be built, — towards temporary 
 or school churches, — towards the purchase of sites, and the 
 building of permanent churches, — towards parsonage-houses 
 for incumbents, and endowments (if its funds will allow), — 
 together with its system of loans in cases where time for 
 collecting, and not the gift of, money, is the more pressing 
 want, — appear to leave nothing deficient in its plan, but to 
 afford the fullest scope for the development of the resources 
 of the Church, and to give every aid and encouragement which 
 the local promoters of Church Extension can reasonably 
 desire. And its practice has kept pace with its proposals. 
 In the five years of its existence, from May, 1854, to May, 
 1859, it has made grants to the following extent : — 
 24 for Additional Churches. 
 3 for Enlargement of existing Churches. 
 
 2 for Enfranchisement and Purchase of Proprietary 
 
 Chapels. 
 10 for Temporary Churches. 
 9 for purchases of Sites. 
 
 3 for Missionary Curates. 
 12 for Parsonage-houses, 
 
 and 14 Loans. 
 
 The whole of the funds entrusted to its disposal, Aaz. 33,637/. 
 (including a Parliamentary Yote of 10,000/. from the Crown 
 Land Revenues, in behalf of the extensive house property 
 held by the Crown in the Metropolis,) has been appropriated 
 without reserve. But while the managers of the Society
 
 10 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 have endeavoured to adapt their plans to the varying wants 
 of the Diocese, and have faithfully administered the funds 
 committed to their care, it must be admitted that the arrange- 
 ments for making known its cause, and collecting further 
 funds, are yet very imperfect. Local influence has not been 
 employed to any great extent. But if, under the Voluntary 
 System, the work of Church Extension is to be prosecuted to 
 a successful residt, it must be brought home to every part of 
 the Diocese, as one in which aU are bound to help according 
 to the means with which God has blessed them. A central 
 Committee in Pall Mall cannot hope to make its voice heard 
 beyond a very limited circle, amidst distracting appeals for 
 aid from all quarters, not only of the country, but of the 
 Empire, unless it be ivarmhj assisted hy local influence. For 
 information, and for guidance in contributing to religious 
 objects not immediately connected with their own parishes, 
 Churchmen depend, in a great degree, on the Clergy whose 
 ministrations they attend ; and the advocacy, or the silence, 
 of the latter, will usually determine the result of external 
 applications. The projectors of the Metropolis Chui-ches 
 Fund, and of the London Diocesan Chm^ch Building Society, 
 were alive to the value of local influence, and introduced 
 among the Rules of both Associations, the following : — 
 " Local Committees shall be formed throughout the Diocese, 
 "to solicit contributions, and promote generally the ob- 
 "jects of the Society." Little progress, however, has 
 yet been made in carrying this Rule into efiect. The 
 St. Pancras, and the Islington, Church Extension Funds 
 have been received into union. A local Church Ex- 
 tension Association was instituted in Hampstead in 1858, 
 and aids this Society with a portion of its fimds. In the 
 present year a similar Association has been established in 
 Ilighgate. But the remainder of the Diocese is still unpro- 
 vided Avith these institutions. And yet they are recom- 
 mended by the example both of Church Extension Societies 
 in other Dioceses, and of almost all the larger Societies for
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 11 
 
 otlier purposes. The most successful Churcli Extension 
 Society in England, the Lichfield Diocesan, makes separate 
 collections in its several Archdeaconries. The majority of 
 the others make similar arrangements. The Reports of the 
 larger Societies exhibit the same system carried out with 
 the most systematic regularity. Few places in the Diocese 
 of London are unprovided with district agencies for the 
 dissemination of information, and the collection of funds, in 
 behalf of some or other of the numerous Associations for 
 religious and benevolent objects. And these arrangements 
 are attended with success, as will be seen by the following- 
 Abstract of Local Remittances from the Diocese of London, 
 for one year, 1857-8, to some of the Societies, — the sub- 
 scriptions paid to the chief Office being excluded : — 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Church Missionary Society 9,073 11 10 
 
 Propagation of the Gospel Society 6,G39 12 3 
 
 Church Pastoral Aid Society 3,139 15 4 
 
 Additional Curates Society 80G 4 
 
 London Society for Promoting Christianity 
 
 amongst the Jews 1,779 7 5 
 
 Society for Irish Church Missions to the Roman 
 
 Catholics 1,854 7 3 
 
 The London City Mission raised, in the year 1858-9, by 
 Local Associations in the Metropolitan Districts, including 
 parts of the Diocese of Winchester, nearly 19,000/., the City 
 of London alone contributing 1757/. ^ It received also 
 5719/. 12s. 7d. from collecting Associations in the country, 
 places even in Scotland and Ireland joining in the con- 
 
 3 This is worthy of remark, because the London Diocesan Church Building 
 Society is virtually excluded from the City of London. In 1857, arrangements 
 had been made with the Lord Mayor to hold under bis auspices a jiublic meeting 
 in the City to advocate the claims of the destitute parishes of the Metropolis upon 
 its wealthy citizens, but the General Election occasioned its postponement. 
 When a few weeks later the subject was again brought forward, the Lord Mayor 
 stated that it had been intimated to bim, that occasion would be taken to debate 
 the question of the City Churches ; he doubted, therefore, the expediency of 
 holding the meeting. Upon this hint, the Society, feehng, that, although they 
 were not concerned in the question, its discussion would only confuse the pubUc 
 mind, and interfere with the immediate object of the meeting, withdrew. The 
 attempt has not since been renewed.
 
 12 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 tribiition. When wc contrast with these results the revenue 
 for the past year of the London Diocesan Church Buikling 
 Society, and see that its total amount was 4112/. 6s. 6d., — 
 that of this sum 216/. 8s. 7d. consisted of repayment of loans, 
 and for the purpose of this statement should be deducted, 
 — that 2330/. were contributed by eight individuals^ as 
 " Landowners' Subscriptions," — and that the remainder, 
 1555/. 17s. lid., represents the gifts of the Diocese at large 
 in Donations, Annual Subscriptions, and Sermon Collections, 
 — we are forced to the conclusion, that the collecting arrange- 
 ments of the Society are yet in an imperfect state, and that 
 this defect must be taken into account in estimating the 
 causes of the depression of Parochial Church Extension in 
 the Diocese of London. 
 
 Such, my Lord, appear to me to be some of the principal 
 causes of the present indifference to the progress of Church 
 Extension in this Diocese. 
 
 Another reason has, I am aware, been advanced to account 
 for the want of interest manifested in the Society's work. It 
 has been said, that the Society would be more successful, if it 
 limited its operations to certain specific cases, instead of 
 proposing to assist Church Extension in the Diocese gene- 
 rally. But this objection does not appear to me to be founded 
 in reality. For the Society publishes annuallj^, in its Reports, 
 a statement of works in progress in the Diocese, and, by its 
 rules, oflPers to receive contributions to be appropriated to any 
 of them according to the wishes of the donors. And it has, in 
 fact, received no less than 4323/. in various sums for special 
 appropriation. The local promoters also of schemes of 
 Church Extension advertise them from time to time ; although 
 in many instances without success. The true reason appears to 
 me to be more deeply seated, viz. the want of general support 
 to the cause of Church Extension : and, whether the Society 
 shall decide to aid special cases only, or to adhere to its 
 
 * Viz. the Duke of Bedford, 1000/. ; the Marquis of Westminster, 1000/. ; 
 Lord Ebiiry, 10(W. ; Earl Cadogan, 50/. ; Earl of Dartmoutli, 50/. ; F. Attwood, 
 Esq., 100/.; J. H. Mathews, Esq., 20/. ; and the Rev. J. G. Lonsdale, 10/.
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 13 
 
 original design of assisting the local promoters of Church 
 Extension "v\^thout distinction, I do not see how any im- 
 portant work can be accomplished, unless the Society's 
 objects shall be pressed more generally and more earnestly 
 upon the attention of the Churchmen of the Diocese. 
 
 With regard to the remedies required, I beg to offer to 
 your Lordship the following remarks, observing the order in 
 which I have stated what seem to me to be the causes of 
 depression. 
 
 1. For the sake of the large masses of population now 
 dependent upon the Voluntary System, it is to be regretted 
 that the Select Committee of the House of Lords did not 
 specially inquire into the actual operation of that system as 
 a means of relieving the spiritual destitution which the 
 Minutes of Evidence so abundantly disclose. The value of 
 an instrument consists in its adaptation to the purpose 
 which it is intended to effect. Tried by this test, the Volun- 
 tary System has not succeeded in this Diocese. The wealth 
 of the Diocese has not been brought to bear, in any adequate 
 degree, upon its overwhelming spiritual destitution. Large 
 sums have, indeed, been at times collected, — instances of 
 great individual liberality, nay even munificence, have been 
 occasionally exhibited, — but the work is not done, — nor is 
 there any near approach to its accomplishment. Yet, when 
 the adequate supply of the outward means of grace to the 
 popidation of the Metropolis, or their being left in a semi- 
 heathenish state, is the alternative, nothing short of complete 
 success ought to be satisfactory. A careful investigation of 
 the history of the Vohmtary System in this Diocese in con- 
 nexion with this question, from the commencement of the 
 present centui'y, would, I think, be attended with very useful 
 results. It is always desirable, in questions involving im- 
 portant consequences, to possess accurate knowledge, as the 
 foundation of soimd opinions. Although general Parlia- 
 mentary Grants for Church Extension appear to be abandoned 
 by common consent, yet the question which will probably be
 
 14 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 again raised in Parliament, of the appropriation, under the 
 E( clesiastical Commission, of funds arising witliin the Diocese, 
 aDplicable to endowments, — a question of the highest import- 
 ance to the progress of Church Extension in this Diocese, — 
 may be very materially influenced by the right or wrong views 
 which may be taken of the working of the Voluntary System. 
 To provide, under the Voluntary System, the large sums 
 necessary to acquire sites, to erect permanent churches and 
 parsonage-houses, and to produce a perpetual endowment 
 of adequate amount, in a sufficient nimiber of cases in the 
 present state of this Diocese, must be all but a hopeless 
 task. But if by the assistance of the Ecclesiastical Com- 
 missioners, who will, in a few years, have ample Diocesan 
 funds in their possession, the Voluntarj^ System could be 
 relieved altogether of the burden of the endowment, and of 
 half the expense of the Parsonage-house, there would be 
 some encouragement to proceed energetically with the other 
 portions of the scheme, and, possibly, by the help of Tem- 
 porary Churches, which would give time for the collection 
 of funds, considerable progress might be made in carrying 
 them out to a successful result. 
 
 2. With regard to the difficulty presented by the un- 
 settled opinions of Churchmen as to the duty of contributing 
 to Parochial Church Extension, the most obvious remedy has 
 been already suggested by the Committee of the London 
 Diocesan Church Building Society, in the Addi'ess which was 
 read at the Conference, viz. an Appeal by your Lordship to 
 the Diocese. An expression of opinion on the part of your 
 Lordship as Chief Minister of the Church in this Diocese, as 
 to the quarter, in which responsibility really rests, would 
 doubtless go far to fix the views of many with whom even 
 the elements of the question are subjects of debate. The 
 Address would also reach many members of a class, which is 
 not readily accessible to the ordinary methods of application, 
 viz. the nobility, and higher gentry, who have residences in 
 London. And it would communicate to those who have but
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 15 
 
 recently become inhabitants of the Diocese, information 
 which they would not otherwise easily obtain. 
 
 3. The distractions of London life arise from circum- 
 stances, which are not likely to change. But it may bo 
 suggested to thoughtful minds as a subject worthy of the 
 most careful consideration, whether it is right that the 
 poorer population of our overgrown parishes should be the 
 victims of those circumstances, — whether it is necessary that 
 the pursuit of varied and distant objects should be accom- 
 panied by a depressed condition of the Church in the Chief 
 City of the Empire, — and whether there is not a gradation 
 in a Churchman's obligations to his Parish, — his Diocese, — 
 his Country, — the outlying Dependencies, — and the World 
 at large ? 
 
 4. In order to promote the formation of Local Associations 
 in connexion with the Diocesan Church Building Society, 
 a measure which appears to be indispensable if the influence 
 of the Society is to pervade the Diocese, the appointment of 
 Organizing Secretaries in the two Archdeaconries would 
 probably be the most effectual means to be adopted. Great 
 advantages would also be derived from the preaching of 
 Sermons on behalf of the Society, under your Lordship's 
 sanction, as suggested by the Committee, especially if the 
 same plan were followed as in 1844, when, at the request of 
 Bishop Blomfield, Sermons were preached throughout the 
 Diocese for the Metropolis Churches Fund, as nearly as 
 possible on the same Sunday. The result of this general 
 Appeal was the collection of 7342/. An united and simul- 
 taneous effort of this kind woidd not only bring an imme- 
 diate and important addition to the funds for the relief of 
 spiritual destitution, but would also produce a more lasting 
 effect, by directing the attention of the public strongly to the 
 present state of the Diocese, and to the urgent need which 
 exists for zealous exertions, in order to supply its deficiencies. 
 During the fifteen years which have elapsed since the last 
 general Appeal in this cause, the features of the case have 
 become much more unfavourable.
 
 16 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 The population of the Metropolitaii District increased, be- 
 tween the years 1841 and 1851, by 560,000 ; and according 
 to the present rate of progress as calculated by the Hegistrar- 
 General, the ten years between 1851 and 1861 will show 
 an addition of nearly 600,000 more. The first thirty years of 
 the present century added one million to the numbers existing 
 in 1801, but now tiventy years only will have sufficed to add 
 a second million to the already unwieldy masses inhabiting 
 this limited area. 
 
 "With regard to the spiritual provision for the population so 
 collected, it was stated in 1846 by the Committee of the 
 London City Mission, as the result of an analysis of a very 
 elaborate body of statistics : — • 
 
 " As compared with other populations of our country, the religious 
 necessities of London are by far the worst provided for. At the last 
 census there were in Great Britain 25,543 clergy and ministers, but in 
 London only 1275, or little more than one-half of the number which 
 should have been found within it, if only it received the same share of 
 attention as the kingdom at large. 
 
 "In Wales, in 1831, there were 4 dioceses, 1059 churches and 1004 
 chapels, or 2063 places of worship for 805,236 persons, while in 1841, 
 in London, there were but 797 places of worship for 2,103,279 persons. 
 
 "In Scotland, in 1841, there were 1845 churches and chapels, besides 
 the chapels of the Wesleyans, Baptists, and Friends, for a population of 
 2,620,184, and these are now greatly increased by the Free Churches 
 which have been recently built, while in London in the same year there 
 were but 797 churches and chapels for 2,103,279 persons. 
 
 " We have even sent the Gospel to the ends of the earth, while many 
 parts of the heathen world are, and have been for years, better supplied 
 with religious teachers than London. The heathen demand our earnest 
 efforts, and every Christian will rejoice in the multiplication of such 
 efforts ; but if while making these we pass by our neighbours at home, 
 may it not be asked whether our efforts will be acceptable to God, and 
 whether He will not reprove and punish our insincerity and guilt *?" 
 
 Again, in 1854, the following statement was published 
 under the immediate sanction of Bp. Blomfield : — 
 
 " It is a startling fact, however, brought to light by the recent Census, 
 that, notwithstanding the operations of the Metropolis Churches Fund, 
 
 ^ London City Mission Magazine, Jan. 184(>, p. 4.
 
 IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 17 
 
 ilie total provision for public worship, including not only Churches, but 
 Meeting-houses of all descriptions, is less in Middlesex than in any other 
 English county. The provision of all kinds, throughout England and 
 Wales, is 57 per cent., but in the Metropolitan parts of Middlesex and 
 Surrey it is under Sff per cent. ; and the provision in Churches throughout 
 England and Wales is 29 per cent., but in the Metropolitan parts of 
 Middlesex it is 17"5, and in those of Surrey 17 per cent^ In fact, the 
 whole number of persons, for whom spiritual provision of any kind is 
 made, by the Church of England, or by Christians of other denominations, 
 is, in Shoreditch 19-614 out of 109-257; in Whitechapel 19-903 out of 
 79-759; in Marylebone 39-565 out of 157-696; in St. Pancras 51-275 out 
 of 166-956. With all reasonable allowances for the inaccuracies insepar- 
 able from such extensive and complicated returns, it is evident that, not- 
 withstanding the munificent donations of individuals to the Metropolis 
 Churches Fund, the great body of Churchmen throughout the Diocese 
 have been lamentably wanting in their duty ; either not contributing to 
 the good work at all, or not according to their ability. They have shut 
 their eyes to the fact, that this greatest and wealthiest of Cities must, 
 under God, exert a commanding influence for good or evil, not merely 
 on other Dioceses, but throughout the British Empire, and the world at 
 large ; and that they cannot, without betraying the most essential interests 
 of Christendom, allow, when it is in their power to prevent it, the growth 
 of Infidelity and Heathenism among the millions around them, for whom 
 they are especially bound to feel a Christian interest ''." 
 
 In 1850, the Commissioners " for inquiring into tlie prac- 
 " ticability and mode of subdividing populous parishes in 
 " England and Wales," rej)orted that 58 new churches were 
 required in the Diocese of London. 
 
 In 1854-5, the Committee of the London Diocesan Church 
 Building Society instituted a special inquiry into the wants 
 of the Diocese, and published a short detailed statement, 
 derived from "the report of the Clergymen of upwards of 
 " 200 of the principal parishes and districts of the Diocese of 
 " London, as to the present needs of the existing population 
 "in Church accommodation, and increase in the staff of 
 " Pastoral Clergymen. Such a state of the Church as the fol- 
 " lowing summary represents, in the wealthiest and mightiest 
 
 6 " The omission of the Cathedrals, and of the Chapels attached to Hospitals, 
 Workhouses, and Prisons, will not materially affect this calculation," 
 " Address of the London Diocesan Church Building Society, May 1854. 
 
 B
 
 18 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCH EXTENSION 
 
 " city of the Christian world, is indeed most startling and 
 " melancholy. ... It apjDears from these statements that in 
 " the opinion of the Parochial Clergy upwards of 100 
 " churches, in addition to those now in progress or in con- 
 " templation, are either necessary to meet the existing need 
 " of the souls committed to their charge, or ought to be built 
 " as soon as possible, to keep pace with the rapidly increasing 
 " population of London ^." 
 
 And more recently, in 1858, the evidence of various Cler- 
 gymen and others connected with the Diocese, taken by the 
 Select Committee of the House of Lords on Spiritual Des- 
 titution, has confirmed the previous statements, and placed 
 the whole case in such a state of completeness as to in- 
 formation, that further inquiry must for some time to come 
 be altogether superfluous. 
 
 On the other hand, in the face of this constantly increasing 
 necessity for combined efibrts on the part of Churchmen, 
 the same period of fifteen years has been marked by the gra- 
 dual decay of the Metropolis Churches Fund, without any 
 substitute, until its reconstitution in 1854 ; and subsequently 
 the new Society has been supported so feebly, that its pe- 
 cuniary resources have been utterly and hopelessly inade- 
 quate to the extent of the work to be performed. 
 
 Under these circumstances, a renewed and general Appeal 
 from the pulpits of the Diocese afibrds the best hope of 
 arresting the attention of Churchmen, of bringing to a 
 Ijractical result the information already collected, and of 
 facilitating all those measures of Local Associations, &c., 
 which are required to keep up a permanent and wide-spread 
 interest in this vital and all-important question. 
 
 It is very desirable that the London Diocesan Church 
 Building Society should be recognized in its true character, 
 not as an Association formed to give effect to the pecidiar 
 notions of individuals, but as your Lordship's chief instru- 
 
 8 Annual Report, 1855, pp. 10-13.
 
 tN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 19 
 
 ment, in the absence of any official establishment for the pur- 
 pose, in carrying on the work of Parochial Church Extension 
 in the Diocese. In its success or failure is involved the 
 question, whether or not, in many of our overgrown parishes, 
 children shall be baptized, — young persons educated and con- 
 firmed, — adults instructed, — vice reproved, — religion en- 
 couraged, — infidelity checked, — poverty relieved, — and sick 
 and aged persons visited and consoled. It is no sufficient 
 reason for neglect, that immediate and tangible results have 
 not, in all instances, fulfilled the sanguine expectations of the 
 promoters of Church Extension. Church Extension is a 
 question of duty, rather than of results, to be prosecuted in 
 faith, on the principle that we are bound to offer to all our 
 population, within reasonable limits, the means of attending 
 public worship and of being instructed in the principles of 
 religion. 
 
 I trust that your Lordship will excuse the length to 
 which these observations have extended. My best apology 
 will be found in the extraordinary 'plimnomena which this 
 Diocese presents, — in its enormous wealth, — in its benevolent 
 and religious activity, as evidenced by the numerous Societies 
 whose business is carried on within its limits, — and in the 
 great spiritual destitution which notwithstanding prevails in 
 so many of its own parishes. That your Lordship's efibrts 
 to provide remedies for this pressing evil, and to arouse the 
 zeal and liberality of the Churchmen of the Diocese, may 
 be abundantly blessed by Almighty God, is the earnest 
 prayer of, 
 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship's obedient, humble Servant, 
 A Lay-member of the Committee of the London 
 Diocesan Chirch Building Society. 
 
 Hampstead, Oct. 25, 1859.
 
 LONDON : 
 GILBERT AND RIVINaTON, PRINTEPS. 
 
 sT..Jo^^'s sqparr.

 
 
 3^ ^»v 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J2> Ji> ^^ 
 
 ^^^ -- 
 
 
 
 "=^"j> ^ ' 
 
 ?^^»' 
 
 :^^^