Part 1

Transcribed from the 1883 Hodder and Stoughton edition by David Price, email [email protected]. Many thanks to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Libraries for allowing their copy to be consulted for this transcription.

CONGREGATIONALISM IN THE COURT SUBURB.

* * * * *

BY

JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.

_Formerly Minister of Kensington Chapel_.

* * * * *

London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON,

27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

MDCCCLXXXIII.

* * * * *

Butler & Tanner,

The Selwood Printing Works,

Frome, and London.

* * * * *

DEDICATION.

THE FOLLOWING

HISTORICAL SKETCH,

PREPARED AT THEIR REQUEST,

Is Gratefully Inscribed

TO THE

PRESENT MINISTER AND DEACONS

OF KENSINGTON CHAPEL.

INTRODUCTION.

AT the commencement of my History, I wish to convey some idea of what Kensington was at the close of the last century, when the original Nonconformist Church in that place was formed and established.

Kensington as a parish must be distinguished from Kensington as a village or suburb. The boundaries of the parish are still unaltered, yet what it contained ninety years ago was different, indeed, from what it contains now. It is startling to read in Lyson’s “Environs,” published in 1795, the following sentence:—“The parish of Kensington contains about 1,910 acres of land, about half of which is pasture meadow, about 360 acres are arable land for corn only, about 230 in market gardens, about 260 cultivated sometimes for corn and sometimes for garden crops, and 100 acres of nursery ground.”

I often think, as I am reading history, what a contrast exists between its background of natural scenery, and the prospect now before our eyes on the spot to which the history refers. We should not know Kensington if we could see it as it was when Hornton Street Chapel was being built. Then all around was rural. Notting Hill and the whole way to Paddington—where was the parish boundary to the north—exhibited fields bordered by hedgerows. Holland Park, to the west, was a lordly demesne such as you see now “down in the shires,” and the boundary of the parish in that direction, at what used to be called Compton Bridge, was marked by a turnpike gate not long ago removed; beyond it lay a bit of country landscape before you reached the junction of roads at Hammersmith Broadway. No great change had then taken place since Addison—who lived in Kensington—wrote to the Earl of Warwick, saying, “The business of this is to invite you to a concert of music, which I have found out in a neighbouring wood. It begins precisely at six in the evening, and consists of a blackbird, a thrush, a robin redbreast, and a bullfinch. There is a lark that, by way of overture, sings famously till she is almost out of hearing.” “The whole is concluded by a nightingale.” Such were the warblers that broke the silence of Kensington woods when no screech of the railway whistled in the wind, and no lumbering omnibuses thundered along the highway. Indeed, I well remember the nightingales in Holland Park, after the commencement of my ministry at Hornton Street. Earl’s Court, even then, was separated from Holland Park gates by a country lane which began at Pembroke Square. But fifty years before, now ninety years ago, it was thereabouts all pleasant open country, dotted with homesteads, paddocks, gardens; whilst at eventide broad green meadows saw “the lowing herd wind slowly o’er the lea.” Brompton, included within the parish, extended to the borders of Chelsea, famous for cosy retreats occupied by merchants and literary men. Turning from south to east, there opened, under the shadow of the palace, those gardens which had become famous and much admired in Queen Anne’s time; and after Hornton Street chapel was built, a minute of the Board of Green Cloth recorded that an annual pension of £18 was to be paid to a widow, named Gray, “in consideration of the loss of her husband, who was accidentally shot while the keepers were hunting foxes in Kensington Gardens.” {9a}

Lyson tells us that in 1795 there had been new buildings erected, principally in and near the hamlet of Brompton. “The present number of houses,” he says, “is about 1,240, of which about 1,150 are inhabited, the remainder are for the most part unfinished.” {9b}

So much for the parish. Now look at the Court suburb; so small in comparison with the parish, that it may be compared to a shrivelled kernel in a nutshell. There, in the centre, stood the old Parish Church, pronounced by Bishop Blomfield the ugliest in the country; and in Church Street, higher up, the Vicarage was encompassed by a goodly garden and small park, now covered by rows of houses. Quaint-looking tenements bordered Church Street a little way. Campden House and grounds retained a palatial appearance. A row of brick dwellings, taking us back to the days of the first Georges, still line Holland Street, and were then in their prime. Hornton Street looked out, in spring, upon blooming orchards. The road between Kensington Palace Gate and Holland House was, as it still is, the main thoroughfare; and I conclude that Phillimore Place, called by the Prince Regent “Dish-clout Row,” from its tasteless slabs in front, was then in pristine pride. Kensington Square, though shorn of the glories it possessed under the first two Georges—when it boasted of forty coaches, and of lords and ladies occupying the buildings round it—still presented much quiet respectability; and old inhabitants, as they passed by the palace gates, could tell of having heard from their fathers and mothers how one morning there issued thence “Horse Guards with their trumpets, and a company of heralds with their tabards, to proclaim, after Queen Anne’s death, George, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith.”

All round, the Court suburb was separated from neighbouring hamlets by a belt of orchards, gardens, and nursery grounds; and the road between Kensington Gardens and Knightsbridge remained notorious for its loneliness and perils. Opposite Hyde Park were a few aristocratic mansions, with spacious lawns, shrubberies, and gardens bounded by lofty walls; but the road was often in very bad repair. In the middle of the century, Lord Hervey told his mother it was impassable, and that in Kensington he lived “in the same solitude as he should do if cast on a rock in the middle of the ocean.” {11} Matters might have mended somewhat at the time the chapel was built, but a good old pew-opener, Mr. Mundy, told me how he remembered that people at Knightsbridge, bound for Kensington after dark, would wait till they made a number large enough to defend themselves against the footpads who infested the thoroughfare. The old half-way house and the turnpike gate, symbolical of ancient days, lingered so late as the middle of my own ministry.

Along that road, and through Kensington suburbs, George III. used to drive down to Windsor in a lumbering coach with outriders and an escort. There sat on the box, in grand livery, “a body coachman,” as he was called. His name was Saunders. To speak of that good man may seem to be travelling out of my record, but it will be seen that he played an important part in Kensington Church history. He was a favourite with His Majesty, and used to put tracts in the pocket of the coach for his master to read on the way to the Royal Borough. The latter liked them so well, that he encouraged the servant to keep the pocket furnished with such publications; and we can fancy the Queen’s grandfather, in his cocked hat and neat wig, poring over the pages provided for his entertainment and benefit. The coachman was a Nonconformist, and when he was staying at Windsor gathered a few people together in a house which bore the unattractive name of “Hole in the Wall,” where they held a religious service, and formed the nucleus of the Independent Church of which I was pastor for eleven years, part of it as colleague with the venerable Alexander Redford. It is a curious coincidence that this worthy coachman may be accounted founder of the two Churches in which I have laboured the whole of my pastoral life.

He lived part of his time at Kensington, and wished to see a Nonconformist congregation there. He met with a few people in “a very humble dwelling,” {12} for religious worship, and out of that grew the Dissenting Church in Hornton Street.

Kensington Parish Church, between 1762 and 1770, was favoured with the ministry of the celebrated Dr. Jortin, an author and preacher of extraordinary reputation; and he was succeeded by Dr. Waller, of whom I know nothing except that he was killed by the fall of a chimney during a great hurricane in November, 1795. Then came the Rev. Richard Omerod. “There was no man, perhaps, who more eminently possessed the faculty of conciliating all ranks and orders in a large and populous parish than Mr. Omerod. Nor was this effected by courtly demeanour or by flattering profession, but by that honest and amiable simplicity of life and heart, which both dignify and recommend the Christian minister. To a native purity of mind and unaffected sanctity of life, he added a calm, gentle, and unobtrusive manner, which never failed at once to disarm hostility and to command respect. In his discharge of the complicated duties of a parish priest he was eminent and exemplary. By the higher orders he was respected and admired, and by the lower orders he was venerated and loved; and possessing alike the confidence of both, he was the channel of communicating the bounty of the one to relieve the necessities of the other.” {13a} He was vicar from 1795 to 1816.

Dr. Waller was incumbent when the body coachman held his meetings at Kensington, and Mr. Omerod succeeded Dr. Waller soon after Hornton Street Chapel was built.

I wish we knew more of that coachman, who deserves to be held in honour by the congregation of the present day; since it appears that he not only brought together a nucleus for the Church, but contributed out of his limited means ten pounds for the erection of a chapel. {13b}

The earliest document preserved relative to the building I may here insert, as it indicates the different elements of Nonconformity blended in the enterprise. Some of the originators, most it would seem, were Presbyterians, but united with them were Independents and others.

_To the friends of Religious Liberty_, _Sincere Christianity_, _and of Benevolent dispositions_, _etc._:

We, the undersigned,—of whom some have been educated in the principles of the Established Church of Scotland, and others in that class of Dissenters in England whose principles, opinions, and faith is the most generally consonant to, and founded on, the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and on the essential doctrines of Christianity as professed by both the National Churches of England and Scotland;—being, therefore, Dissenters from the established mode of worship in this country, and being situated at a great distance from any place of worship agreeable to the dictates of our consciences, we, from pure motives of religion and piety alone, for conveniency to ourselves and families, and to others who may be like-minded with us in matters of religion, do propose, under the favour and blessing of a Divine Providence, to erect and build a (temple) for the worship of Almighty God in the parish of Kensington and county of Middlesex.

We profess our religious opinions to be, according to the rites, form of worship, as well as of the doctrines and discipline agreed upon in the Confession of Faith, by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster (so far as the circumstances of our situation will admit of); we wish to follow their soundness of faith, purity, and simplicity of worship, as far as we judge them founded on the Word of God, agreeable to the standard of faith contained in the Holy Scriptures, the alone unerring guide of faith and manners.

We therefore invite the serious Christian, the friends and lovers of Gospel truth, to join with us in this good undertaking to promote the glory of God, the interests of true religion, and the eternal happiness of ourselves and fellow-Christians; having nothing in view but to forward the attainment of these great objects, we leave the briers, and thorny fields of disputation, and false philosophy, of factions, politics, and jarring interests of ambitious men, “that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty,” as commanded. 1 Timothy ii. 1, 2.

Connected with this document is another, shorter and more general, stating “that a suitable piece of ground, on a long lease,” had been secured, on which was to be erected a building, “estimated at upwards of £900,” which had been already begun, and was then “carrying on.” The object of this paper was to secure contributions. The builders’ estimate amounted to £927 15_s._ 6_d._ The structure was at once duly registered, “pursuant to the Act of Toleration in that case made and provided.” A recommendation of the case is preserved, signed by several ministers, chiefly Presbyterians, stating that friends at Kensington, for themselves and neighbours—as there “was no proper regular place of worship for those who could not conform with the Established Church—had determined to unite their efforts towards supplying this defect.”

The dimensions of the edifice were sixty feet by forty inside; but the ground in length extended to one hundred and nine feet.

I. THE FIRST PASTORATE. _THE REV. JOHN LAKE_.

NO account is given of the chapel opening; but in October, 1794, an invitation appears, in the name of “the trustees and subscribers,” addressed to the Rev. John Lake, M.A., {17} requesting him to take “the pastoral charge of the congregation,” to which, in the following month, an answer was returned accepting the charge, and expressing a hope that the people would receive the Word preached with meekness and affection, with freedom from prejudice, and with the simplicity of little children. “Carefully guard,” he says, “against whatever may engender strife and division. Endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Live in peace, and may the God of love and peace be with you.” Mr. Lake, it is believed, was a Presbyterian clergyman, and on the 1st of March he preached two discourses suitable to the occasion, which was to unite “several constant and serious hearers at the new chapel” in “church communion,” that they might enjoy “religious ordinances.” The tone of the whole letter is devout and beautiful, and gives a favourable impression of the writer’s character.

“On Sunday, March 8th, a special meeting was held at the chapel in the afternoon, of as many as were desirous of joining as members and communicants at the Lord’s Table, when Mr. Lake attended and entered into religious conversation with those present, to whom he also delivered a suitable exhortation. The service was begun and concluded with prayer, singing, etc.”

“March 30th. The Rev. Mr. Lake, who had accepted the pastoral office some months ago, removed with his family to Kensington.”

“On Thursday, April 9th (notice having been given from the pulpit the preceding Lord’s Day), Mr. Lake was set apart and admitted to the pastoral office in this Church, in the following manner: The Rev. Mr. Moore began with prayer and reading some suitable portions of Scripture; then singing; Dr. Hunter prayed; singing; the Rev. Mr. Smith preached a suitable and excellent sermon from Ezekiel iii. 17–21; then singing, after which Mr. Rutledge concluded with prayer and benediction. Several other ministers, besides those who engaged, were present. The reverend ministers and some of the principal heads of families afterwards dined together. The service at chapel was conducted to the general satisfaction of all present.”

“On Friday, April 10th, in the evening, a sermon, preparatory to the administration of the Lord’s Supper, was preached by the Rev. Mr. Love, from Exodus iii. 5. A meeting was afterwards held to consult about the choice of elders, when, after some deliberation, it was thought proper to postpone the choice to a future opportunity.”

“On Sunday, April 12th, the members enjoyed the long wished for opportunity of joining as a Christian Church at the table of the Lord. The Lord’s Supper was dispensed in the chapel for the first time by the Rev. Mr. Lake, in the following manner: After preaching a suitable discourse from 1 Corinthians xi. 26, and giving out a Psalm, he came from the pulpit to the communion table, where a linen cloth and the elements had been previously laid, the great pew, as well as three or four of the adjoining pews, were filled with communicants. After rehearsing the words of institution, with some useful remarks, Mr. Lake prayed what has been called the consecration prayer; then, with further address to the communicants, he distributed the elements of bread and wine. After which, during the singing of a hymn, he returned to the pulpit, gave an exhortation to those who had received, and concluded the whole with prayer, benediction, and a collection, as is usual on such occasions.”

The record of that first communion is very interesting. I have seen the solemnization of the Holy Supper after different methods: at Rome, before the high altar of St. Peter’s, amidst lights, flowers, and incense, with attendant cardinals, and all the pomp and splendour of a Roman court, and have there witnessed theatrical effects; in England, within the choir of a Protestant cathedral, I have beheld a bishop and his clergy administering the eucharist to kneeling worshippers, and have recognised in the scene much picturesque beauty. But I must say, that while reading the entry in the Kensington Church book, illuminated by my own memories of its communion Sundays during more than thirty years, I have before me a mode of administration, not only different from those just indicated, but in simplicity approaching, in my estimation, as near as possible to the Passover feast in the upper room at Jerusalem. It adds greatly to the interest of this unpretending record, to recall to mind contemporary events. The Church was formed, the minister was ordained, and the Lord’s Supper was administered just at the period of “the Reign of Terror” in Paris and throughout France; and, I may add, a different reign of terror in London and Great Britain. The revolution storm had been breaking in wild fury over our continental neighbours. Blood had been poured out like water by a ferocious tribunal of madmen calling themselves patriots. In two months, out of seven thousand political prisoners, five hundred and twenty-seven had perished under the guillotine. Neither sex nor age, neither rank nor obscurity, neither wealth nor indigence had shielded the most innocent from vengeance. Exiles had swarmed over to England, and were hiding their poverty and shame in the country village, the English capital, and the Court suburb. Tales of change after change had reached our shores, and filled thousands of hearts with terror. English rulers of that day, terrified by what they heard, may be really said to have lost their heads, for they adopted such tyrannical measures for repressing sedition and treason, that Charles James Fox said in reference to the trials of Muir and Palmer in Scotland, that if the law enforced there should be brought into England, it would be high time for “him and his friends to settle their affairs and retire to some happier clime.” It was just afterwards, and whilst order on the one side and freedom on the other were in jeopardy, that the humble fathers and founders of the Church at Kensington met to choose a pastor and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in their new fellowship. “God,” says the forty-sixth Psalm, “is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. _There is a river_, _the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God_.” As political storms roared around, the Kensington company enjoyed that Divine consolation.

The names of the first communicants are preserved, and in the course of the year 1795 eight others were added. In 1796 nine more, in 1797 five, and in 1798 three. One of the earliest members was a Mrs. Schmae whose husband was living when I went to reside in Kensington. He was a pious old man, full of faith, hope, and love; and when I visited him on his death bed, he told me he had been many years member of Dr. Steinkopf’s Lutheran Church in the Savoy, and showed me a German Bible he valued, which was given to me by the family after his death.

The principal persons in the management of affairs at the earliest period were Messrs. Forsyth, Broadwood, and Grey, all Scotch Presbyterians. Mr. Broadwood was the famous pianoforte maker. Mr. Grey was a proprietor of the “Brompton Park Nursery,” spoken of as famous for plants of all sorts, “which supply most of the nobility and gentry and gentlemen in England.” John Evelyn visited the nursery in 1694, with Mr. Waller, who “was in admiration at the store of plants, and how well the nursery was cultivated.”

Amongst early secular incidents connected with the chapel, was an attempt made on the part of the parish to include the building in the poor-rate assessment. This was in 1795. But the trustees resisted the imposition; and on the case being considered by the magistrates at Hicks Hall, they decided that the place being supported by voluntary contributions, could not be justly liable to the parish rate. Similar attempts were made afterwards, with a similar result.