SUBSTANCE OF A SPEECH,

&c. &c. &c.

THAT part of the speech of the Lords Commissioners which relates to the want of accommodation for Public Worship, having been read by the Chairman, viz. "The Prince Regent has commanded us to direct your particular attention to the deficiency, which has so long existed, in the number of places of Public Worship belonging to the Established Church, when compared with the increased and increasing population of the country. His Royal Highness most earnestly recommends this important subject to your early consideration; deeply impressed, as he has no doubt you are, with a just sense of the many blessings which this country, by the favor of Divine Providence, has enjoyed, and with the conviction that the religious and moral habits of the people are the most sure and firm foundation of national prosperity :"

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that he believed no communication from the throne had ever been expected with greater anxiety, or received with more satisfaction by the public, than that which the Lords Commissioners had made, by command of the Prince Regent, at the opening of the present Session. For more than a century, the want of accommodation for Public Worship had been felt by the members of the Established Church as a most serious evil; and an attempt had been made so long ago by Parliament to remedy it, so far as respected the metropolis, and its immediate vicinity. This attempt, however, though attended with considerable expense, had been very imperfect in its execution, only. eleven Churches having been built, out of fifty which it was proposed to erect. Since that time no further steps had been taken by public authority, though the evil had been perpetually increasing with the growing population of the country, which was now pro

bably little less than double what it had been when the attempt, to which he had alluded, was made; and still more from its concentration in the metropolis, and the large commercial and manufacturing towns. Nothing, in fact, could have justified so long a delay, -a delay which had continued till any effectual remedy began to be despaired of,-but the difficulties with which the state had had to struggle, and the expensive wars in which it had been involved. It should indeed be remembered that, even during the pressure of the severest and most arduous contest in which this country had ever been engaged, Parliament had made liberal grants to promote the comforts of the clergy, and to confer on the public the benefit of a resident-a respectable-and a moderately endowed ministry. But these grants, however important in their object, could not supply the want of Places of Public Worship, of which there existed so melancholy a deficiency.

He believed that, in support of a fact so generally known, he might rest on the ground of public notoriety. He should, however, for the sake of a clear illustration of the subject, take the liberty of referring to the accounts laid upon the table of the House, by command of the Prince Regent. It would appear from those returns, that the proportion between the number of parishes, and that of their inhabitants, varied extremely in the different dioceses of the kingdom.' The Parliamentary Account, No. 1, which comprises only those parishes which contain at least 2000 persons, and in which the Places of Worship are insufficient to accommodate one-half of the inhabitants, would show, that in the diocese of London there were eighty parishes of that description, containing 930,337 souls, and giving an average of 11,629 to a parish ;-in that of Winchester the average was 8789;-in that of Chester 8195;-while in that of Oxford it was no more than 2422 : so that the proportionate population of parishes, in the diocese of London to those of the diocese of Oxford, was as more than four to one. From the account he had extracted a list of twenty-seven parishes, in which the deficiency was most enormous, the excess of the inhabitants beyond the means of accommodation in the Churches exceed 20,000 in each. Of these sixteen were in, or about London, and eleven in great provincial towns. In three of them, the excess in each was above 50,000 souls; in four more, from 40,000 to 50,000 ;-in eight, from 30,000 to 40,000; and in the remaining twelve, from 20,000 to 30,000. In Liverpool, out of 94,376 inhabitants, 21,000 only could be accommodated in the Churches, leaving a deficiency of 73,376;—in Manchester, of

1 Vide Parliamentary Accounts, an abstract of which will be found in the Appendix.

79,459, only 10,950, leaving 68,509; and in Marybone, of 75,624, no more than 8700, leaving 66,924 without the means of accommodation. It thus appeared that in three parishes only there were near 210,000 inhabitants who could not obtain access to their Churches. It was not indeed, in his opinion, necessary that the Church should be sufficiently large absolutely to contain the whole of the inhabitants of a parish at the same time; a large deduction must always be made for infants, and for those who, from age, from infirmity or sickness, or from necessary domestic avocations, were unable to attend. Allowing for these circumstances, and considering the opportunities which the different services performed in the same day might give to differentclasses of the population, he should conceive that a parish might be considered as not inadequately supplied if the church could contain one-third of the inhabitants at the same time and it would be obviously desirable to provide in the Bill for the performance of three services on every Sunday and the more important festivals, in the new Churches, in order to derive the greatest accommodation to the public, at the most moderate expense. If this were not the case, the deficiency in the larger parishes would appear so enormous, and the expense of providing any adequate remedy so immense, that he could hardly have the courage to propose to Parliament to undertake so hopeless a task. In this respect some objection might be made to the statements of the very useful publications of Mr. Yates, from which he had derived much valuable information, and which he could recommend to every gentleman who might wish to turn his attention to this part of the subject. By comparing the capacity of our Churches with the total amount of the population, and placing the actual deficiency upon such a comparison, in the strongest light, Mr. Yates undoubtedly would lead to a desponding view of the subject: but his work contains accurate abstracts of the returns to the Privy Council, which have since been laid before Parliament; and other valuable documents, besides his own striking and useful observations.

From the returns on the table it appears that the deficiency was greatest in the district of London, lying in the dioceses of London and Winchester; and in those of Chester and York: and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would state the absolute deficiency in each, compared with the whole population, but subject to the observations he had just made. The population of London and its vicinity was 1,129,451; of whom the Churches and Episcopal Chapels can only contain 151,536, leaving an excess of 977,915. This statement, however, excludes the City of London, in which there was a superfluity of Churches, considerably exceeding what the inhabitants required. This not only arose

from a diminished population, occasioned by the great proportion of space now occupied in the City of London by warehouses and workshops, but was also the case in all the other most ancient cities in the kingdom. In Norwich, Lincoln, and the other cities which existed under the Roman empire, the parishes are small and the churches very numerous, and originally of small dimensions, as appears from the few original structures which are still remaining: but in those towns which have been built or greatly enlarged in later times, and especially since the Reformation, the case is very different. In the dioceses of York and Chester, the disproportion of population to the capacity of the Churches, was little less than in the district of the metropolis. In the diocese of York there were ninety-six Churches, which afford room for 139,163 inhabitants-the whole population amounted to 720,091, so that there was a deficiency of accommodation for 580,928. In that of Chester, there were one hundred and sixty-seven parishes, the Churches in which would contain 228,696; but the actual population was no less than 1,286,702, leaving a deficiency of 1,040,006. The deficiency was therefore most striking in London and Chester, but it was very great in some other dioceses. In that of Winchester (part of which was comprised in the London district) there were thirty-seven parishes, of which the Churches could receive 59,503; the population was 325,209, leaving a deficiency of 265,706; more than four-fifths of the whole number were therefore unable to find accommodation. In cases such as these, the impossibility in which the far greater part of the inhabitants were placed of attending divine service even once a-day, was however by no means the only evil. There were many other most important functions of his sacred office which it was impossible for any clergyman, however zealous and laborious, adequately to discharge towards a population of 40,000 or 50,000 souls, or even a much smaller number. He might instance (as Mr. Yates has most forcibly done) the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the rites of Baptism, Burial, and Marriage. How was it possible for those ordinances to be celebrated in the solemn and impressive manner which their serious and important nature required, in the crowd and hurry unavoidably attending their perpetual and almost ceaseless repetition in such a crowded population? How even could due care be taken to avoid mistakes, and to guard against frauds and impositions affecting the most important civil rights of individuals? He might indeed almost say, that the reformation for which he pleaded, was not less important to the security of property and of the civil order of society, than to the higher considerations of religion and morality. To illustrate this part of his argument, he

79,459, only 10,950, leaving 68,509; and in Marybone, of 75,624, no more than 8700, leaving 66,924 without the means of accommodation. It thus appeared that in three parishes only there were near 210,000 inhabitants who could not obtain access to their Churches. It was not indeed, in his opinion, necessary that the Church should be sufficiently large absolutely to contain the whole of the inhabitants of a parish at the same time; a large deduction must always be made for infants, and for those who, from age, from infirmity or sickness, or from necessary domestic avocations, were unable to attend. Allowing for these circumstances, and considering the opportunities which the different services performed in the same day might give to differentclasses of the population, he should conceive that a parish might be considered as not inadequately supplied if the church could contain one-third of the inhabitants at the same time and it would be obviously desirable to provide in the Bill for the performance of three services on every Sunday and the more important festivals, in the new Churches, in order to derive the greatest accommodation to the public, at the most moderate expense. If this were not the case, the deficiency in the larger parishes would appear so enormous, and the expense of providing any adequate remedy so immense, that he could hardly have the courage to propose to Parliament to undertake so hopeless a task. In this respect some objection might be made to the statements of the very useful publications of Mr. Yates, from which he had derived much valuable information, and which he could recommend to every gentleman who might wish to turn his attention to this part of the subject. By comparing the capacity of our Churches with the total amount of the population, and placing the actual deficiency upon such a comparison, in the strongest light, Mr. Yates undoubtedly would lead to a desponding view of the subject: but his work contains accurate abstracts of the returns to the Privy Council, which have since been laid before Parliament; and other valuable documents, besides his own striking and useful observations.

From the returns on the table it appears that the deficiency was greatest in the district of London, lying in the dioceses of London and Winchester; and in those of Chester and York and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would state the absolute deficiency in each, compared with the whole population, but subject to the observations he had just made. The population of London and its vicinity was 1,129,451; of whom the Churches and Episcopal Chapels can only contain 151,536, leaving an excess of 977,915. This statement, however, excludes the City of London, in which there was a superfluity of Churches, considerably exceeding what the inhabitants required. This not only arose