Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:09:49.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Response of the Church of England to Economic and Demographic Change: the Archdeaconry of Durham, 1800–1851

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

W. B. Maynard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the Established Church from the 1740s to the 1830s is viewed as a period of inertia and complacency. Failure to respond to the exigencies of the economic and demographic revolutions resulted in the increasing weakness of the National Church when compared with extra-establishment religion. In the face of increasing pastoral responsibilities, the Church was slow to augment its existing accommodation, or to respond to the challenge of modifying the ancient parochial structure in the face of patron and incumbent interest, and increasing Nonconformist hostility. The resulting decline of the Church from its near monopoly position in 1800, to that of a minority Establishment by 1851, is well documented. Yet while the general pattern of Church extension is known, there have been few studies of the Anglican decline at the diocesan level. Of the twenty-seven dioceses in existence in 1800 one is of particular importance – the diocese of Durham, ‘where the Church was endowed with a splendour and a power unknown in monkish times and in Popish countries’. Here the Church possessed its greatest concentration of resources; here also it was to suffer its greatest reverses.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 1991 , pp. 437 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I wish to acknowledge most gratefully the assistance of the following in the preparation of this paper: the Warden and Fellows of Merton College for enabling me to spend Trinity Term 1987, working in Oxford; the National Endowment for the Humanities, Travel to Collections programme; and Ms Louise Cameron BA, MPhil for her helpful criticism.

1 Gilbert, A. D., Religion and Society in Industrial England, London 1976, 27.Google Scholar By 1832 the bishop of Chester, John Bird Sumner, considered it too late to ‘repair the culpable indifference of those who lived before them: Soloway, R. A., Prelates and People, London 1969, 310.Google Scholar See also Port, M. H., Six Hundred Mew Churches, London 1961, 5.Google Scholar

2 The Speech of Mr. Brougham delivered at the Trial of the Cause of The King versus J. A. Williams for a Libel on the Clergy at the Durham Assizes, 08 6th 1822, Durham 1822, 6.Google Scholar

3 Parliamentary Papers (hereinafter PP) 1852–3, L 39 (1690), 297.Google Scholar

4 An increasingly important market centre and a bridging point on the Tees, Stockton was separated from Norton by act of parliament in 1711:Google ScholarWilliam, Fordyce, The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 2 vols, Newcastle 1857, ii. 159.Google Scholar The population of Sunderland, having outgrown the available accommodation in the parish church at Bishopwearmouth, was constituted a separate parish by act of parliament in 1719: Edward, Hughes, North Country Life, The North East, 1700–1750, London 1952, 13;Google ScholarFordyce, , Durham, ii. 424. The chapels were built in 1754, 1769, 1706 and St Anne's was restored in 1781: Durham University, Durham Diocesan Records (hereinafter cited DDR), episcopal visitation returns, 1774: Houghton-le-Spring; Sunderland; Ryton; St Andrew's, Bishop Auckland.Google Scholar

5 Gilbert, , Religion and Society, 98–101;Google Scholar see also Joan, Thirsk, ‘The farming regions of England’, in Joan, Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, IV: 1500–1640, Cambridge 1967, 21–-5 passim;Google ScholarAlan, Haig, The Victorian Clergy, London 1984, 251.Google Scholar

6 Maynard, W. B., ‘The ecclesiastical administration of the Archdeaconry of Durham from 1774–1856’, unpubl. PhD diss., Durham, 1974, 384–6.Google Scholar

7 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), ccxvii. This is true for the diocese–the figures for Northumberland were 18% and 31 % respectively.

8 Chad wick saw the palatine jurisdiction of Durham as a pompous and expensive relic of a bygone age: Owen Chad wick, The Victorian Church, 2 vols, London 1966, i. 136;Google ScholarSykes, Norman, Church and Slate in England in the Eighteenth Century, New York 1975, 149, 157;Google ScholarThe Correspondence of King George the Third, ed. Sir Fortescue, John, 6 vols, London 1927–8, i. 33–44 passim.Google Scholar

9 Durham Chronicle, 23 Feb. 1822, claimed that the Dean and Chapter possessed the fee simple of about one-third of the county.Google Scholar

10 Sykes, Church and State, 158, 160.Google Scholar

11 But 1850 was an exceptional year. Over the period 1843–50 Durham's average annual income exceeded that of Canterbury by over £3,000 per annum – their respective average yearly incomes over the septennial period were £29,651 against £26,591: PP 1851, XLII (400), 475, 478. From 1837 the Episcopal Fund drew £11,200 per annum from the Durham revenue and by the terms of 6 and 7 William IV c. 77 the see was to retain £8,000 per annum. Favourable economic circumstances, however, resulted in the episcopal income averaging over £15,500 per annum during the same seven-year period. For the improvement of episcopal income, see Hughes, North Country Life, ch. vii, passim; Gateshead Public Library (hereinafter GPL), Cotesworth MSS, ‘A rental of the bishop of Durham's freehold and copyhold rents'; Ellison MSS, John Dixon to Henry Ellison, 8 May 1756; DDR, account of Seal Fees, and the Temporal Acts of John Egerton, summary of episcopal leases, 1771–86; Durham University Library (hereinafter DUL), MS 449 ‘Temporal Acts of John Lord Bishop of Durham beginning 20 Augt. 1771‘ and Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 56. For episcopal incomes from 1829 to 1850 see PP 1851 42 (400),.Google Scholar

12 It is of interest to note that twenty-six of these livings were valued at less than £300 per annum, and nine had no parsonage house: Hansard, 3rd series (21 July 1836), 35, 366.Google Scholar

13 Best, G. F. A., Temporal Pillars, London 1964, 63.Google Scholar

14 PP 1837, 41 (115), 34. Durham's sixth stall was worth more to Phillpotts, the bishop of Exeter, than was his bishopric. In 1850 his income from Durham was £2,625, from his see £1,509: PP 1851 42 (400), 52, 489.Google Scholar

15 Mussett, P. and Woodward, P. G., Estates and Money at Durham Cathedral, 1660–1985, Durham Cathedral Lecture, Durham 1988, 11.Google Scholar

16 Durham County Record Office (hereinafter DCRO), published map ‘Durham Parish and Chapelry Boundaries, circa 1800’, Durham County Council, Durham 1983. See also DDR episcopal visitation returns; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 22.Google Scholar

17 DDR episcopal visitation returns, 1810; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 27–8. The bishop of Durham's disproportionate influence over the patronage system is clear from the 1821 census. Nationally, episcopal patronage amounted to no more than 12% of the total. It was not until 1878, following a 40% increase in the number of benefices, that the episcopal share reached as high as 20%: PP 1822, xv (502), 14.Google Scholar

18 The number of advowsons in the hands of the parochial clergy, by virtue of their incumbency, increased from ten in 1774 to thirty-one by 1856: DDR, episcopal visitation returns, 1774; DDR, Diocese Book, 1856; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 94, 50.Google Scholar

19 From the 1780s the rate of population growth in the industrial counties had been between 30 and 34 % – it was in the newer industrial counties that growth had been fastest: Phyllis Deane, and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth, 1688–1959, London 1969 –13; PP 1852–3, LXXXV (1631), xxxiii.Google Scholar

20 See p. 438.Google Scholar

21 Thirsk, , Agrarian History, 16–28 passim.Google Scholar See also House, J. W., North Eastern England: population movements and the landscape since the early nineteenth century, Newcastle 1954, 12–13Google Scholar

22 Ibid. 42–3;Google ScholarSmailes, A. E., North England, London 1968, 136.Google Scholar

23 Thirsk, , Agrarian History, 1–2.Google Scholar

24 Hughes, Mark, ‘Lead, land and coal as sources of landlord income in Northumber-land between 1700 and 1850 ’, unpubl. PhD diss., Durham 1963, 46–7.Google Scholar

25 For the rector of Stanhope's negotiations with the London Lead Company,Google Scholaribid. 49–51 passim. In 1832 Stanhope and Wolsingham were valued by their incumbents at £4,718 per annum and £907 per annum, respectively: Church Commissioners (hereinafter cited CC) 1832 New Benefice files (hereinafter cited 1832 NB files), Stanhope and Wolsingham. The value of Middleton in less easily known: the incumbent made no return to the enquiries of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1832. Fordyce valued the rectory in 1857 at £600 per annum: Fordyce, Durham, ii. 63.

26 Smailes, , North England, 136.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. 164 –7 passim. See also Kirby, M. W., Men of Business and Politics, London, 1984, 8–9, 21, 24.Google Scholar

28 PP 1852–3, 85 (1631), xxxiii.Google Scholar

29 Hansard, 3rd series (1 Mar. 1849), cm, 1043.Google Scholar

30 PP 1852–3, 89 (1690), 91; 37% represents 55,857 seats for the population of 149,384: PP 1818, xviii (004), 137.Google Scholar

31 In addition, eight existing churches or chapels were rebuilt including two completed since 1826, and thirteen others were enlarged: Dean, Durham and Chapter Library (hereinafter cited DCL), Raine MSS, R8 Report for 1850 of the Proceedings of the Durham Committee for the Enlargement of Churches and Chapels, 3; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 384–6.Google Scholar

32 The number of churches and sittings both increased by 24% – from 11,379 t0 14,077 and 4,289,383 to 5,317,915 respectively: PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), cxl, cxxxiv-cxxxv, and ccxcviiGoogle Scholar

33 Wearmouth, R. F., Methodism and the Common People of the Eighteenth Century, London 1945, 182.Google Scholar

34 DDR, episcopal visitation returns, 1792, passim.Google Scholar

35 PP 1832–53, LXXXIX (1690), ccxli, 245. By 1812 there were reported to be 173 Dissenting chapels in the Diocese: PP 1812, x (256), 115; Methodist Church Archives and Research Centre, John Rylands University Library, University of Manchester, (here-inafter cited MCA), Wesleyan Methodist Minutes of Conference, the numbers in local societies, ii. 1800.Google Scholar

36 DDR episcopal visitation, 1810, Sunderland.Google Scholar

37 David, Hempton, Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750–1850, London 1987, 216.Google Scholar

38 Ward, W. R., Religion and Society in England, 1790–1850, London 1972, 52;Google ScholarHempton, , Methodism and Politics, 28.Google Scholar

39 Pellow, G., The Life and Correspondence of the Right Honourable Henry Addinglon, First Viscount Sidmoulh, 3 vols, London 1847, 3. 41,Google ScholarShute Barrington, bishop of Durham, to Viscount Sidmouth, Mongewell, 11 07 1809. See also Hempton, Methodism and Politics, 99.Google Scholar

40 PP 1812, x (256), 155.Google Scholar

41 PP 1818, xvm (004), 93.Google Scholar

42 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), ccxli, cclxxiv, cclxxv.Google Scholar

43 Fordyce, , Durham, 2. 713.Google Scholar

44 CC 1832 NB file, St Oswald's; CC 1832 NB file, Shincliffe return to the bishop of Durham, dated 1829: Revd Thomas Gisborne (prebend of the fifth stall in Durham cathedral, 1823–6) to George Jenner (Doctors Commons, London), Yoxall Lodge near Lichfield, 24 Dec. 1824; same to same, Durham, 21 Apr. 1825; Revd Peter Penson (vicar of St Oswald's) to Jenner, St Oswald's Vicarage, Durham, 7 Oct. 1828; Revd Isaac Todd (vicar of Shincliffe) to (?), 10 Sept. 1830.Google Scholar

46 CC 1832 NB file, Gateshead Fell, William Hawks (rector of Gateshead Fell) to Christopher Hodgson (secretary/treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty), Gateshead Fell, 22 July 1826. See also Fordyce, Durham, ii. 789.Google Scholar

46 CC 1832 NB file, Bishopwearmouth.Google Scholar

47 The parish church could accommodate no more than 1,200, of which only sixty were free seats and those in a gallery recently added by the rector: CC 1832 NB file, Houghton-le-Spring. See also ibid, petition from Edward South Thurlow (rector of Houghton-le-Spring) to Church Building Commissioners, 28 Feb. 1823 and an altered version of same, dated 16 Sept. 1823, for a grant of £400 towards the construction of the chapel at West Rainton, and correspondence between Thurlow and the Commissioners regarding the allocation of free seating in the chapel. For Hetton-le-Hole see ibid. Nichol, J. S. (curate of Hetton) to Charles Knight Murray (secretary to the ecclesiastical commissioners), Hetton-le-Hole, 13 July 1840.Google Scholar

48 CC 1832 NB file, Stanhope, St John's Weardale, Heathery Cleugh; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 396–7.Google Scholar

49 Christopher Hunt, ‘Economic and social conditions of lead miners in the northern Pennines in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’, unpubl. M Litt diss., Durham 1968, 361.Google Scholar

50 The 1831 population of the Dales Circuit, which included Stanhope and Wolsingham, was 4,319, of whom 774 were counted as Wesleyan Methodists. The Primitive Methodist circuit, centred on Darlington, claimed 258 members. For Methodist numbers see MCA Wesleyan Methodist Minutes of Conferences, the numbers in local societies, vols i-iv (1771–1853), and Primitive Methodist Conference Minutes, vols, 1-iv (1823–55); Fordyce, Durham, 631, 648. As early as 1713 the incumbent of Hexham noted the isolation of certain communities, and warned that lack of pastoral oversight may 1 prove a temptation or Pretence to some, to go no where to worship God, others to despise Infant Baptism, turn Quakers and make themselves Burying Places more convenient at home. For the carrying the dead upon Mens shoulders so many Miles, in such difficult way to the parish church,... is such a heavy Burden... as justly needs to be redressed‘: Hunt, ‘Economic and Social Conditions’, 356–7.Google Scholar

61 School rooms were licensed at East Gate, but it was not only in the dales that such measures were resorted to. Barrington also licensed school rooms for Sunday afternoon services at Cockerton, Darlington, Shildon, and St Andrew's, Auckland: DDR,’ Report of Church Accommodation in the Archdeaconry of Durham, 1824’, compiled by Archdeacon Charles Thorp (hereinafter, ‘Report of Church Accommodation').Google Scholar

52 Hunt, ‘Economic and Social Conditions’, 356;Google ScholarFeatherstone, J. R., Weardale Men and Manners, Durham 1840, 18–19; PP 1852–3, 89 (41), 113.Google Scholar The Wesleyans built their first chapel in Weardale in 1760. By 1851 they could accommodate nearly 3,200 individuals in ten chapels. By the same date the Primitive Methodists had constructed thirteen chapels providing seating for 2,525. For a contemporary account of the progress of Methodism through the dales see Anthony, Steele, History of Methodism in Barnard Castle and the Principal Places in the Dales Circuit, London 1857, 204–5.Google Scholar

53 DDR, ‘Report of Church Accommodation’, 1824.Google Scholar

54 Archdeacon Thorp's assessment of this report is found in DDR, Charles Thorp to the bishop of Durham, Ryton, 4 Feb. 1825.Google Scholar

55 The unworkable system of briefs was abolished in 1828: Port, Churches, 108–9.Google Scholar

56 Christopher Wordsworth to Lord Kenyon, 5 Dec. 1816, quoted in Best, Temporal Pillars, 258.Google Scholar

57 ibid 196. See also Port, Churches, 13; Best, Temporal Pillars, 195.Google Scholar

58 A diocesan charitable trust founded by Nathaniel, Lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, 1672–1721.Google Scholar See Stranks, C. J., The Charities of Nathaniel, Lord Crewe and Dr. John Sharp, 1721–1976, Durham Cathedral Lecture, Durham 1976, 6–7.Google Scholar

59 DDR, Charles Thorp to the bishop of Durham, Ryton, 4 Feb. 1825; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 173. Of the benefices in the county having a population in excess of 300, 54 % were in need of augmentation - only Chester had a higher percentage of its cures in such need: PP 1835, xxn (54), 1; PP 1836, xxxvi (86), 1.

60 Cornelius, Ives, Sermons on Several Occasions and Charges by William Van Mildert, Late Bishop of Durham to which is prefixed a Memoir, Oxford 1838, 515;Google ScholarMaynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 396–7.Google Scholar

61 As in the townships of Shotton and Haswell in Easington, where in 1831 an ‘entirely agricultural’ population resided ‘little exceeding 1200’, but which by 1841, with the opening of three collieries, had increased to over 5,500: CC 1832 NB file, Easington; Fordyce, , Durham, ii. 351.Google Scholar

62 CC 1832 NB file, Kelloe, Thomas Wood (parishioner) to (Ecclesiastical Commissioners), Thornley in Kelloe, 18 03. 1840;Google ScholarCC 1832 NB file, Castle, Eden, John, Burdon to Christopher, Hodgson, Castle Eden, 28 11. 1838. 63Google Scholaribid

64 CC 1832 NB file, Darlington, St, Cuthbert, letter detailing the condition of the parish, dated 03. 1860 and signed by John, G. Pearson, curate and John, Buckton and Christopher, Wilkins, church, wardens.Google Scholar

65 PP 1831, xvm (348), 1; CC 1832 NB file, St Helen, Auckland. Collectively the Auckland churches were amongst the poorest livings in the archdeaconry. Their average value was £119 per annum: Maynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 167–8.Google Scholar

66 Van Mildert had purchased land valued at £40 per annum, annexed it to Etherley and provided £200 for the building of a parsonage. The incumbent of Shildon was without any stipend whatsoever, Van Mildert having died before any provision was made to secure an income for the chapelry: CC 1832 NB file, Bishop, Auckland, Gresley, Revd A. Douglas to Murray, C. K., Bishop, Auckland, 23 04. 1836. For the number of churches endowed, and benefices augmented by Van Mildert, see PP 1836, XL (205), 3.Google Scholar

67 Best, , Temporal Pillars, 193; PP 1835, XLVI (487), 95;Google Scholaralso DDR, consistory court papers, 20 03. 1823, 8 05 1824, 6 10. 1826; PP 1856, XLVIII (319), 41–4. In Hartlepool, church rate had been laid in 1838; however, four prominent dissenters refused payment, and as a consequence were convicted before the justices at Stockton. For the recovery of the sums owed - not more than id. each - the magistrates ordered the seizure of property for public sale, but according to the Durham Chronicle, feelings ran so high that the goods had to be taken to Stockton to be sold, ‘the parson [Revd Robert Taylor] and his willing coadjutors being afraid to offer them for sale in Hartlepool!’ Less than a month later, under the heading, ‘Triumph of Right Principles’, the Chronicle reported the refusal of church rate in the Durham city parish of St Nicholas. Here, however, the issue had much in common with the 1831 opposition to church rate in Manchester, as it appears to have been in fact as much a protest against the historic involvement of the city's clergy in borough politics and their support of anti-reform candidates. In the reformer's sights would have been successive incumbents of St Nicholas who aggressively promoted the establishment politics of their patron, the marquis of Londonderry.Google ScholarThe Chronicle saw the refusal as ‘the defeat of the High Church party, in the very shade of the Cathedral’, and as such ‘a token of encouragement to Reformers in other places’: Durham Chronicle, 13 07. 1838; PP 1856, XLVIII (319), 42;Google ScholarDurham Chronicle, 10 08. 1838.Google ScholarFor the Manchester church rate issue see Ward, Religion and Society, 178–83.Google Scholar

68 CC general files, Durham Bishopric Estate Papers, ‘Augmentation of certain benefices in the diocese of Durham’. For the Stockton, Wesleyans see MCA, District Minutes, Darlington District Meeting, 26, 27, 28 05 1835;Google ScholarCC 1832 NB file, Thomas, Stockton St, Edward Maltby to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 9 07 1846.Google Scholar

69 ibid See also CC 1832 NB file, Etherley, , Gresley, A. Douglas (curate of Etherley) to Murray, C. K., Bishop, Auckland, 23 04. 1836.Google Scholar

70 3 George iv c. 72; CC 1832 NB file, Stockton, St Thomas.

71 PP 1852–3, LXXXV (1631), xxxiii. 72 CC 1832 NB file, Heworth, St Mary.

73 CC 1832 NB file, Merrington cum Ferryhill, Revd John Tyson (vicar of Merrington) to C. K. Murray, 20 June 1845.

74 CC 1832 NB file, Lanchester, John Fanshaw (curate of Lanchester) to C. K. Murray. 7 June 1848.

75 CC 1832 NB file, Hamsterley, bishop of Durham to C. K. Murray, Auckland Castle. 7 Nov. 1848.

78 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), 114.

77 So acute was the accommodation crisis on the north shore of the Wear that in spite of the fact that Monkwearmouth was in private patronage, the chapter, as impropriator, purchased a disused Methodist chapel at Southwick for use until an additional church could be built: PP 1857–8, ix (387), 352; CC 1832 NB file, Bishopwearmouth, 'Bishopwearmouth Church Building Fund’, 20 Mar. 1849, and ‘Memorial from the Bishopwearmouth Church Building Committee’ to Edward Maltby, Bishopwearmouth. 22 Nov. 1848. It had been projected that future requirements necessitated the addition of at least 3,150 sittings, Ibid.

78 Ibid; Hansard, 3rd series (20 Mar. 1848), cm, 1034.

79 CC 1832 NB file, Bishopwearmouth, particulars of the value of the rectory during Wellesley's incumbency compiled by Mr Davidson, the rector's agent.

80 For the public debate see the Daily Mews, London, 1 Sept. 1848 to 17 Aug. 1849, passim. See also CC 1832 NB file, Bishopwearmouth, C. K. Murray to bishop of Durham. 5 July 1849.

81 DDR 1861, archdeaconal visitation, Bishopwearmouth.

82 Gilbert, , Religion and Society, 130; PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (41), cxi. From 1837 to 1850 Durham episcopal revenues paid into the Episcopal Fund amounted to over £150,000. Between 1841 and 1852 the dean and chapter contributed over £96,000 to the Common Fund:PP 1856, xvm (20,43),4i;PP 1851, xxn (1327), 427; PP 1854, xix (1733), 92. See also PP 1856, xvm (2039), 103.Google Scholar

83 Both the new bishoprics were endowed with Durham episcopal property. In addition, by Order in Council of 28 July 1859, the patronage of twenty-seven benefices formerly in the gift of the bishop of Durham was transferred to the bishops of Ripon, Manchester and Chester.

84 Chadwick, Victorian Church, i. 126.

85 Best, , Temporal Pillars, 306–7;Google Scholarsee also Chadwick, , Victorian Church, i. 140.Google Scholar For Durham opposition to the Ecclesiastical Commission see appendix, PP 1856, xvn (2043), 260–6. 374–9. Before its passage, parliament received twenty-six petitions from Durham against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, including three from the dean and chapter, and two from the clergy of the diocese, organised by Thorp in his capacity as archdeacon and official to the officialty of the dean and chapter: Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 270. Speaking before the assembled clergy of the archdeaconry and the officialty in 1837, Thorp referred to the creation of the Ecclesiastical Commission as ‘the beginning of the end’: Durham Chronicle, 1 June 1837.

86 See Memorial to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of Local Claims: PP i860, LIII (125), 418–19. The Durham cause was championed in the Lords by the marquis of Londonderry. The patron and owner of the great tithes of two Durham City livings, St Giles and St Nicholas, and a leading colliery owner, he developed Seaham Harbour and thus became personally involved in the church extension movement. To provide for the spiritual needs of a rapidly growing population he gave land for a church and burial ground, and with his wife helped to raise £1,200 towards construction of the new church. Opened in 1840, St John's, Seaham Harbour, provided 400 sittings, 200 of which were fre.

87 See the letter 1859 from Lady Londonderry to Charles Thomas Langley, bishop of Durham, printed in Heesom, ‘Seaham Harbour’, 151.

88 Of the twenty-four parishes, the bishop and chapter were patrons and/or impropriators of eighteen: Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 384–5, 90–6.

89 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), ccxcvii, cciii.

90 Ibid, ccxcvii, ccxci; PP 1852–3, LXXVIII (72), 34–6. Similarly at St Andrew's, Auckland with St Anne's, three clergymen worked amongst a population of 9,000 - there were five Sunday services, occasional week-day services, plus the usual round of baptisms, churchings, marriages and burials, along with attendance at five National Schools: C. 1832 NB file, St Andrew, Auckland, letter of George E. Green (curate of St Andrew's, Auckland), Parsonage House, Bishop Auckland, 15 July 1857.

91 See E.Hughes, ‘The bishops and reform, 1831–33; some fresh correspondence’, English Historical Review lvi (1941); Alan, Heesom, The Founding of the University of Durham, Durham Cathedral Lecture, Durham 1982, 11–25; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, passim.Google Scholar

92 Best, , Temporal Pillars, 356.Google Scholar

93 DCL, Raine MSS R8, ‘Report for 1850 of the Proceedings of the Durham Diocesan Committee in Aid of the Incorporated Society for the Enlargement and Building of Churches and Chapels’, 3. For grants received from the Church Building Commissioners see PP 1837, XLI (449), 429 and PP 1852–3 LXXXVII (125), 129. For grants from Lord Crewe's Trust see Minute Book of Lord Crewe's Trustees, Dean and Chapter Office, Durham.

94 DCL, Archdeacon Sharp's Library, ‘Record of benefactions made by the Dean and Chapter of Durham’. For episcopal grants see Maynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’.395–9.Google Scholar

95 M., Hughes, ‘Lead, land and coal’, 44;Google ScholarMaynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 122.Google Scholar For the Barrington Fund, and schools created thereby, see Sir Bernard, Thomas, The Barrington School, London 1812. See also Hunt, Economic and Social Conditions, 395–6.Google Scholar

96 PP 1851, XLH (400), 108.

97 Ibid. 107, 330, 478.

98 Heesom, , University of Durham, 12;Google ScholarFlinn, M. W., The History of the British Coal Industry, Oxford 1984, 47–8. In 1824–5 tne dean and chapter contributed £300 towards the building of a chapel for the pitmen and their families at Rainton: DCL, Archdeacon Sharp's Library, ‘Record of benefactions made by the Dean and Chapter of Durham’.Google Scholar

99 For episcopal and capitular augmentations see Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, ch. iv, passim.

100 Armstrong, G. G., ‘The life and influence of Shute Barrington’ unpubl. M Litt diss., Durham 1937, 507.Google ScholarSee also Barrington's will, printed in John, Nichols, Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, London 1828, 621–9.Google Scholar For the Maltby Fund see Best, , Temporal Pillars, 404;Google Scholar for parsonage house expenditures from 1848 see Maynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 315–27.Google Scholar

101 Charles Thorp: in evidence before the Lords Committee on the Means of Divine Worship in Populous Districts PP 1857–8, ix (387), 358. A close study of the chapter's augmentation policy in the archdeaconry undermines confidence in the impression left by Thorp's totals. As most of the chapter's augmentations were in the form of the cessation of tithes, rents, etc., it is perhaps the case that the archdeacon's figures represent inflated land values rather than sums actually expended, or in fact received by incumbents: Maynard, , ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 174–202, passim.Google Scholar

102 Daily News, London, 23 03. 1849Google Scholar. 103 Ibid. 1 09. 1848.

104 Durham County Advertiser, II 08. 1848.Google Scholar

105 Best, , Temporal Pillars;Google ScholarDaykin, C. W., ‘History of parliamentary representation in the City and County of Durham, 1670–1832’, unpubl. M Litt diss., Durham 1961, 340;Google ScholarChester, New, Lord Durham, Oxford 1929, 53;Google ScholarLeonard, Cowoper, The History of John George Lambton, First Earl of Durham, London 1959, 63.Google Scholar Durham solicitor James Losh noted in his diary on 18 Mar. 1820 that the opposition to Lambton, ‘originated principally with the church party’: The Diaries and Correspondence of James Losh, I: Diary 1811–1823, ed- Edward, Hughes (Surtees Society, CLXXI, 1962 for 1956), 102.Google Scholar

106 The Durham establishment candidate was Viscount Dungannon who, as the Hon. Arthur Trevor, had been the city's Tory MP since 1831. In the 1837 contest he had been proposed by the Revd Edward Davidson, incumbent of St Nicholas; in 1843 by the Revd George Townsend, curate of St Margaret's and prebend of the tenth Stall. Disqualified after his March election for campaign irregularities, Dungannon none the less received the nine clerical votes cast. The ensuing July election was marked by an increased clerical turnout at the polls, with thirteen votes cast for the Tory Thomas Purvis, and two for Bright. Of the Wesleyan votes cast, twenty-one went to Bright, and two to Purvis: Durham Poll Book, Durham 1837;Google ScholarLocal Collections or Records of Remarkable Events Connected with the Borough of Gateshead, 1843, Gateshead, 1843.Google Scholar

107 In 1835 Hedworth Lampton, MP for the northern division of the county, estimated the income of the see to be £50,000 a year: The Times, 19 Jan. 1835; see also Heesom, University of Durham, 15. The actual income of the see was in fact just under £19,400: PP 1851, XLII (400), 107.

108 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), cclxviii; Maynard, ‘Archdeaconry of Durham’, 395–8; PP 1852–3, LXXVIII (72), 35. The Religious Census notes South Shields as one of the manufacturing towns with the smallest percentage of church or chapel attendance in the country. Of those attending, 68% went to nonconformist chapels – both Sunderland and Gateshead, livings in episcopal patronage, are to be found in the same grouping. See K. S. Inglis, ‘Patterns of religious worship in 1851’, this Journal xi (i960), 83–4, 85.

109 Daily News, London, 10 Nov. 1848.

110 Heesom, University of Durham, 21–6; Fordyce, Durham, i. 298.

111 PP 1852–3, LXXXIX (1690), ccxcvii. In Northumberland the percentage of available church accommodation was broken down thus: Wesleyan Methodists provided 15%; all Methodist denominations accounted for 27%; the Anglican Church provided 39% of the total in 154 churches: ibid, ccxvi.

112 PP 1857–8, ix (387), 356.

113 Ibid. Thorp computed that in addition £326,000 would be required for Northumberland: ibid. 413.

114 Ibid. 356.

115 The proposition was incorrect – between 1836 and 1855 the total sum abstracted from the see was £335,309. Over the same period the Commissioners spent over £62,000 in the diocese, exclusive of augmentations through the annexation of land or tithe rent charges vested in the Commissioner: PP 1856, xvm (2943), 41.

116 PP 1857–8, ix (387), 356. Ravensworth was patron and impropriator of one of the poorest livings in the archdeaconry, and as such was not without experience of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The perpetual curacy of Lamesley was without glebe or parsonage, and valued at less than £140 per annum. In November 1841 Ravensworth informed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of his offer to provide a parsonage site, £500 towards the construction of a house, and a one-and-a-half-acre field as glebe. With uncharacteristic haste,or so it appears in comparison with the Londonderry/chapter correspondence, the Commissioners contributed £400 towards construction in Augus. 1842 with the Bounty Board providing an additional £200: CC 1832 NB files, Lamesley, and CC Queen Anne's Bounty, file F2922, Lamesley. In the Team valley, Lamesley was in the district of the expanding coking coal industry. By 1847, the village of Ayton or Eighton Banks, two miles distant from the parish church, was the centre of the population of over 2,300 souls. Clearly in need of another church, the funding of church extension in this underendowed living stands as a graphic example of the voluntaryism upon which Thorp had wished to depend. The site for the church was gifted, and in addition to contributions from the Church Building Society, and its diocesan branch, the cost of construction was met by subscription from twenty-nine local and diocesan sources, including £200 from Ravensworth. See above p. 449; Fordyce, , Durham, ii. 649.Google Scholar