A HISTORY OF LONDON position affected them in all relations. That there was already a parish church in the neighbourhood made no difference to the ' ecclesiastical poacher,' who bore his title with equanimity as long as his chapel paid him well. The parochial clergy feared the withdrawal of their dues and resented interference, though the evil really arose from their neglect ; Sacheverell, as rector of St. Andrew's Holborn, complained that the chapel of St. George's ' had in some measure taken away from him a great branch of the best part of his parish.' **^ Being built on freehold and not on leasehold property, many of these chapels were not consecrated and might be converted to a secular use, or, if consecrated, they might be closed ; *" several chapels, like that in Orange Street, passed into the hands of Nonconformist bodies.*'* The question of the right of patronage arose in 172 1, when some Whigs began to build the chapel of St. John Bedford Row, in Sacheverell's parish of St. Andrew's Holborn, and claimed the nomination of the preacher.* Sacheverell entered a counterclaim, and the Whig Bishop Robinson licensed the proprietors' nominee. The case, which was watched with interest, as it affected various chapels then building, was settled by a compromise, and henceforth the proprietor nominated a minister who could only officiate with the consent of the incumbent of the parish, with whom he had no other connexion. He was, however, answerable to the ordinary in matters of discipline.*'^ The London proprietary chapel was an independent unit, owned and controlled by the proprietor ; being separated from the parish, the minister could only read the services and administer the sacraments ; he might perform no parochial offices, though in 1740 Dr. Keith, of Mayfair Chapel, was notorious for his celebrations of clandestine marriages.*" The proprietor usually built and maintained the chapel as a commercial undertaking,*'* to enhance the value of the adjoining property and to make a profit from the pew rents, which were invariably high ; at Grosvenor Chapel in 1786 the yearly rent of a pew was ^^15 oj. 2t/.*" Few free seats were provided,**** and the congregations were composed entirely of rich people and their servants.**^ Although the proprietor usually received the pew rents,**" at Queen's Square Chapel, where ^(^176 was thus paid and all spent on the chapel, the lessees received the offertories.**' An exception to this commercialism was some- times found, as at Spring Gardens, where in 1738 the proprietor divided the profits among the officiating clergy.*** To let the pews the proprietor had to find a popular preacher ; the pecuniary difficulties of the Lock Hospital were ascribed to the governors' failure in this respect. The result was that the minister was entirely dependent on the proprietor, and was often underpaid.**' Not infrequently the minister became the lessee of the chapel, but this did not lessen the irregularities,*** and, in 1748, at the "' Case of the Rector and Patron of St. Andrew's Holborn, lo. '" Haggard, Rep. of Cases in Eccl. Courts, ii, 50. "' Pratt, Life of Rev. Richard Cecil, ii, 50. '" Case of the erection of a chapel or oratory in the Parish oj St. Andrew's Holborn (B.M. Pressmark 698, g, 15, no. 9), 6. "° Reph to the Case of the Rector and Patron of St. Andrew's Holborn, App.
- " Phillimore, EccL Law of the Ch. of Engl. 1,250. "' Middleton, Address to the Parishioners of St. Pancras, 8.
"' MSS. of Earl of Verulam (Hist. MSS. Com.), zi8. "" Bateman, Life of Daniel Wilson, 171. "' Randolph, Charge, 1 8 10, p. 24.
- " Heales, Hist, and Lazv of Church Scats or Pews, ii, I 33.
"' D. and C. Westm. extra-parochial box 2 ; ' The Chapel in Queen's Square.' •" Thomas Newton, H'orks, i, 26. *" Yates, The Ch. in Danger, 34.
- " Polwhele, Lavington's Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists, Introd. p. ccxy. Sect. xi.
366
