A number of minutes occur in the record of affairs, relative to matters of a temporal kind, during Mr. Clayton’s ministry; but there are no entries relative to the admission of members or other strictly religious proceedings. One subject in particular excited the pastor’s solicitude, namely, that the chapel property should be put in trust, which accordingly was done; and in connection with this many discussions arose touching what was needful for discharging pecuniary liabilities. It is plain from what follows that Mr. Clayton was not satisfied with “the mixture of temporals with spirituals,” as he called it; and on Christmas Day, 1804, he publicly assigned reasons for relinquishing the pastoral office. Various rumours were afloat, which he briefly contradicted as “untrue,” and then told his friends that if they were asked “Why has Mr. Clayton left Kensington?” they were to reply, “That it was his earnest wish to be nearer the immediate circle of his ministerial connections and religious friends; that his desire was to be united to a Church whose members more fully coincided with him in sentiment on several subjects, more especially on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; and particularly that he might find a place where he might not be habitually perplexed with secular arrangements, and where he might in some degree enjoy that tranquillity which he deemed so necessary in the present state of his health.” “I have the pleasure,” he added, “to inform you all, that last year this chapel was vested in the hands of nine trustees, who are engaged to see that no minister shall ever be settled here who does not preach the gospel agreeably to the tenets of the Assembly’s Catechism.”
Mr. Biggs, the collector and secretary, also resigned his office, and Mr. Walker was appointed in his room.
On the 31st of October, 1805, it was resolved, “at a meeting held in the vestry,” that Mr. Hamilton, of Brighton, should be invited to become pastor, and an invitation accordingly was drawn up, and signed by two deacons and between eighty and ninety other persons.
To the invitation Mr. Hamilton sent a negative reply, addressed to “the Church of Christ assembling for religious worship in Hornton Street, Kensington, and the subscribers to that interest.”
Meetings afterwards occurred at intervals for the settlement of pecuniary affairs, until the month of January, 1807, when by the direction of “the managers, with the members and subscribers approving,” the secretary, Mr. Walker, wrote to Mr. Leifchild, a student at Hoxton Academy, who had occupied Kensington pulpit with great acceptance, to become minister of the chapel. Mr. Leifchild replied that he could not leave the Academy before the next Christmas, nor accept any call before the next midsummer. In August of the same year a meeting was held at Mr. Broadwood’s house, and it was resolved to secure Mr. Leifchild not less than £160 per annum, with an addition of whatever the chapel might bring in above that sum. On the 3rd of January, 1808, the members of the chapel resolved to invite Mr. Leifchild to the pastorate, and in March he accepted the invitation.
III. THE THIRD PASTORATE.
THE REV. DR. LEIFCHILD.
1808–1824.
“Before accepting the call to Kensington,” he said, as we learn from the Memoir by his son, “while returning from a visit to that place, I heard at the house of a friend that Rowland Hill had announced me to preach at Surrey Chapel on the following Tuesday evening.” He went and preached, and was surprised at the risibility of the audience, which was explained when he heard that Mr. Hill had crept up into the gallery behind the pulpit, and in his own comical way expressed assent to one part and dissent from another part of the discourse. The veteran came into the vestry and asked the young man to become his curate at Wotton-under-Edge. The latter declined the overture, when the former replied, “That reminds me of young men setting up in business before they have served their apprenticeship.” [37] Just before that evening service, the minister of Surrey Chapel had written to Mr. Wilson, Treasurer of Hoxton Academy, saying, “I hear much of a young man of the name of Leifchild. It was supposed that he was going to settle (a bad word for a young recruiting spiritual officer) at Kensington; but that there is a set of formal stupid Presbyterians there, who by no means suit his taste, and that he is consequently still waiting for the further directing hand of Providence, to know where he is to go.” [38a] Mr. Hill was mistaken. John Leifchild did settle at Kensington, and was ordained there in June, 1808, when Dr. Simpson, his tutor, delivered the charge. Dr. Simpson, it may be remarked, was a man of singular spiritual power. Many can argue, illustrate, persuade, and impress, but he could inspire; and the accounts given of him in this respect by his students were enthusiastic. “I received a charge from his lips at my ordination over the Church at Kensington,” says his admiring pupil, “which I can never forget. Much of the attention I afterwards met with in that official connection I ascribe to the affectionate manner in which he addressed me.” [38b]
The new pastor does not give a flattering account of the congregation which formed his maiden charge. “There was a great prejudice,” he says, “in the town against Dissenters. Many of my hearers resided at a distance or held situations in London, and some of the managers of the chapel, who were Scotchmen, were not very spiritual. Of the deacons, some resided in London, and one was very old. He also was a Scotchman, but a very good man. He had been a gardener on a nobleman’s estate, and now lived on a small income, respected for his piety and integrity. He was my best help, but died after a long and lingering illness.” “During that period I never found him otherwise than pious, resigned, and cheerful. He always had a guinea to spare for any religious object of importance, although his income did not exceed £50 per annum. One of the managers was worth at least £20,000, and was as niggardly as Duncan was generous. ‘Here, Duncan,’ exclaimed this wealthy man, on the occasion of an important collection at the chapel, ‘Here, Duncan, will you put this in the plate for me?’ handing two half-crowns. ‘I will, sir,’ replied Duncan, ‘with my own guinea.’ This was said with a good intent, but it hardly agreed with the Master’s precept, ‘Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.’”
Within little more than a year after the new pastor’s settlement, George the Third’s jubilee was held,—an event which of course produced excitement in Kensington, for whilst the royal old gentleman was popular all over the country, beyond what the present generation is apt to believe, he stood particularly high in the affections of the Kensingtonians, who were familiar with his face and figure, as he dashed along in his coach and four, attended by his body guard, through the Court suburb. The cry of his approach, and the distant sight of the soldiers and outriders brought people to the front, lifting their hats as he passed by. With Dissenters he was especially popular, and the Hornton Street congregation loved him all the more because he liked Saunders, the coachman, and read his tracts. So in the loyal demonstrations of October, 1809, they came prominently forward, and established on the 25th of the month a school for “children of both sexes and of all religious denominations.”
Soon after the jubilee had been celebrated, the Nonconformist part of English Christendom was thrown into excitement by Lord Sidmouth’s Bill for abridging the liberty of preaching, under pretence of rectifying an abuse. He complained that licences to preach were sought in order to evade parish duties and militia service, and urged that there should be put upon grants of licence certain restrictions which Dissenters did not approve. The deputies of the three denominations rose in determined opposition to this intermeddling with religious liberty, and petitions against it poured into the Houses of Parliament. The Kensington people joined other Nonconformists in resisting the mischievous scheme, and promised the London committee “the utmost assistance and cordial co-operation”; they also subscribed towards defraying expenses incurred by this “well meant and well timed” assertion of religious freedom. [40]