It would be cruel to inflict upon the reader another list of figures. Let it suffice to say that, roughly speaking, in the first fourteen years of its existence, it raised and spent about as much money as the Parliamentary grants. So that we have a total of at least three millions; and this must be, perhaps, nearly doubled; though on this point it is impossible to speak at all accurately, because the spirit of church-building which had been raised found a vent in numberless acts of private benevolence, which no statistics of Parliaments or voluntary societies account for. A sum of at least six millions may fairly be supposed to have been spent on churchbuilding during the last fifteen years of our period; that is, infinitely more than had been spent during the whole of the hundred years immediately preceding.

The result was all the more remarkable because there were difficulties to be contended with which have now to a great extent disappeared. The old laissez-faire feeling which had been dominant for a century did not die out without a struggle. "The principle generally inculcated," says a contemporary writer, "was-Let things alone. I have frequently heard this maxim delivered with an oracular gravity, a nod of the head intended to silence all schemes of improvement." 8 When the oracle was also the obstructive incumbent, what could be done? Intrenched within his impregnable fortress of freehold rights, he can defy everybody. There he is, and there he will remain. Like olus

Opposition, however, came more frequently from recalcitrant parishioners than from recalcitrant incumbents. A sad instance has already been noticed in the parish of St. Pancras. The vicar was most anxious to supply the crying want of church accommodation, and he had "the cordial support of many of the most honoured and respected names in the parish;" but an opposition was raised which for the time was

1 1 By the expression "raised" I mean to include the money raised by private subscriptions to meet the grant from the society.

For example, Archdeacon Daubeny must have spent nearly £10,000 on his churches. Thomas Dykes spent or raised thousands at Hull for church-building. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth did the same at Lambeth.

3 Christian Remembrancer for 1841; Article, "Prospects of the Church of England."

fatal.

Archdeacon Daubeny found the same difficulty at North Bradley, and many more instances might be given.

Another difficulty arose from the painful fact that opposers could argue with some plausibility, "You are too late; the ground is occupied." The almost insuperable obstacles which had stood in the way of church-building in the first fifteen years of the century did not exist to the same extent in the case of Dissenters. And that, for many reasons. In the first place, they were, as a body, opposed to the war. They were hampered, therefore, by no scruples about diverting money from the patriotic and, as most Churchmen thought, truly Christian object of repelling infidel assailants. Nor did any foolish feeling of dignity make them hesitate to procure money where they could. And, again, to run up a cheap meeting-house was a far less formidable task than to erect a costly church. And, lastly, they had no prescriptive rights, either of obstructive incumbents or of selfish pewowners, to contend with. Man's religious instinct must be satisfied somewhere; and if it cannot find satisfaction in one place, it will seek it in another. Hence the projector of a Dissenting place of worship had the double advantage of knowing that he could combine a pious Christian work with a promising commercial speculation; for it was often a more profitable adventure to build a chapel than to build a house.

And it must be confessed that some, though by no means all, of the most prominent party in the Church played into his hands. "I am not at all particular as to the place of worship you attend, so as it may be under a serious preacher, and so as you attend regularly." "I do not much heed to what place of worship you go, so as you are but a serious and regular attendant." Thus wrote Henry Kirke White, when he was preparing for the ministry of the Church; and though it may be said that the opinions of a mere boy do not count for much, yet it must be remembered that he was a phenomenal boy, and that he was under the direct influence of leading Evangelicals at the time, and would presumably reflect their sentiments. "Some of the most lively and pious

Life of Bishop Middleton, i. 26.

2 See the Remains of Henry Kirke White, with an account of his life by R. Southey, passim.

UGLINESS AND COSTLINESS OF NEW CHURCHES. 155

Christians I know," writes Edward Bickersteth in 1810, "do not hesitate to go wherever they can get benefit."1 Well might Bishop Jebb write to his friend Knox in 1815, "As to the religious world, it would seem that Churches are more and more assuming a Dissenting tendency"! 2

Once more, it might be argued, and was argued with terrible force, "You are asking us to build new churches, but are the existing churches filled?" There is only too much evidence that they were not. The very first chapter in that striking work, "Zeal without Innovation," bears the ominous title, "On the Visible Decline of Attendance on Public Worship;" the contents may be guessed. And the title of the next chapter, "On the Increase of Dissent," suggests one cause. Sydney Smith is full of complaints about the emptiness of churches, some of which have been already quoted. One of the objections raised several times in Parliament against the million grant was that the present churches were not filled.1

That in spite of all these difficulties and objections so much could be done in the way of church-building, is a very remarkable and creditable fact; but whether the money was always spent in the best way, is quite another question. The fact is, that while from the practical point of view this churchbuilding era came too late, many of the sheep whom it was desired to pen having strayed into other pastures, from an architectural point of view it came too early. They built their churches first, and began to study the principles of church architecture afterwards. There are probably no churches which are more of a puzzle and a despair to architects and clergymen than the churches built in the early part of the nineteenth century. Unmitigated ugliness and hopeless inconvenience are their chief characteristics.5 The last great 1 Birks' Memoir of E. Bickersteth, i. 160.

2 Thirty Years' Correspondence between Bishop Jebb and A. Knox, ii. 282. See supra, p. 139.

See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates.

When it was too late, people began to realize with dismay the ugliness of the structures they had erected. In the debate in the House of Commons on the new churches in 1824, Mr. Grey Bennet "asked the name of the architect who built the new church in Langham Place. Everybody who saw it shrugged up his shoulders, and asked who invented such a monstrosity." Others took up the same strain of abuse, and no one had a word to say in favour of the building.

era of church-building, that which extended from the Fire of London to the death of Queen Anne, did at least produce a distinctive style of its own. Sir Christopher Wren and his disciples are surely to be admired. Many-the present writer among the number-see with a pang any obliteration of their work. But who could even affect to raise a sigh of regret at the demolition or transformation of churches built during the period before us? Specimens are only too numerous in every part of the country. They have not even the merit of originality in their ugliness; they are either absolutely nondescript or sham Gothic. Still less have they the merit of cheapness; they were very expensive indeed. Dr. Stoughton calculates that, between 1801 and 1831, five hundred churches were built at a cost of three millions; that would mean £6000 on an average for each church. This costly estimate is more than borne out by other evidences. Bishop Sumner, in his Primary Charge to the diocese of Winchester in 1829, while bearing grateful testimony to the good work done by the Parliamentary grants and the Church Building Society, tells us that "in one parish of Surrey more than £94,000 have been expended within the last ten years in the erection of five additional places of worship," and that “in another parish in Hants two new churches, containing four thousand sittings, had been recently built at an expense of nearly £30,000." This would imply that these seven churches would cost on an average nearly £18,000. In Daniel Wilson's time Islington was "enriched with three large and noble churches, which had in reality cost £30000." We learn from Dean Burgon that the sister of Dr. Routh, Mrs. Sheppard, built at Thrale a church which cost £26,000, including the parsonage house,2

We have only to look at St. Pancras, finished in 1822, to form an idea of how the money was spent ; and we can well understand the reasonableness of the complaint made about its neighbour St. Marylebone. "If," says an anonymous writer to the Bishop of London in 1818, "new churches are

1 See Life of Bishop Daniel Wilson, p. 266.

2 Lives of Twelve Good Men: "Master Joseph Routh," i. 53.

It seems almost incredible, but I believe it is true, that the cost of the two churches actually amounted to more than £150,000.

to be erected on the costly and perverted plan of the new one in Marylebone, if the solemnity and sobriety of ecclesiastical architecture are to be converted into the flaunting and theatrical character of that, very few can be built."1 More were built than the writer anticipated; but that was because far more money was raised than the most sanguine could have hoped.2

Another objection to the expenditure of the money was that the poor were not properly provided for. "Only about one-third of the sittings in the churches erected out of the Parliamentary grants were free. The rented pews were three feet from back to back, and the free seats only two feet four inches."

To Archdeacon Daubeny belongs the credit of erecting the first absolutely free church in England. As this marks an epoch, and as the example was happily by degrees followed by many others, the account of it is worth quoting. "For several years Mr. Daubeny was anxiously engaged in promoting a plan, which originated with himself, to erect a free church in Bath, where accommodation for the lower classes was grievously wanted. The first stone was laid in 1795, and in 1798 a handsome building, containing free sittings for 1360, exclusive of the galleries, was consecrated by Dr. Moss, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and called Christ Church. It was the first free church that ever was erected in this country; he officiated in it for fifteen years. The example was followed in many parts owing to its success."4

Letter to the Bishop of London (Dr. Howley) on the Society for Church Building, 1818.

* The lavish expenditure of money arose from a right feeling that God's house ought to be handsomely built. In a debate in the House of Lords, May 20, 1818, on the clauses of the Bill which limited the powers of the Commissioners "to building churches so as to afford the greatest possible accommodation to the largest number of persons," Lord Grenville said very properly that, "while he deprecated all useless splendour in building of churches, he thought it of importance that that mode should be adopted which was best calculated to inspire devotion, and which was characteristic of the Established Church, and that there should be a decent decoration." The Earls of Liverpool and Harrowby spoke to the same effect. See Hansard.

3 Church Quarterly Review for January, 1885; Art. iv., "The Church in East London," an article which is full of most interesting and accurate information.

Life of Charles Daubeny, Archdeacon of Sarum, prefixed to the third edition of the Guide to the Church, 1830.