No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘A Practice of a Very Hurtful Tendency’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
The church of England in the eighteenth century has been bitterly criticised by succeeding generations for what the high Victorian church of England regarded as two cardinal sins, firstly non-residence of the clergy on their cures and secondly, and consequently, lack of pastoral care. However, generalisations are misleading and especially these generalisations which are largely based on the evidence of opponents of the established church in the early nineteenth century and on standards of pastoral care of one man to one parish, however small the parish, that were only achieved for a period of sixty or seventy years during the later nineteenth century. How misleading these generalisations are becomes apparent when the evidence for non residence and for standards of pastoral care is examined more closely. The object of this paper is to demonstrate that from the evidence of one particular county a clear pattern of clerical residence emerges that is not entirely incompatible with contemporary expectations of pastoral care.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1979
References
1 Johnson’s England, ed Turberville, A.S, 2 vols (London 1933) 1 p 33 Google Scholar.
2 Quoted in Clarke, W. K.Lowther, Eighteenth Century Piety (London 1944) p 22 Google Scholar.
3 For a very detailed analysis of the clergyman’s role based on an examination of eighteenth-century manner books see Russell, A. J., A Sociological Analysis of the Clergyman’s Role with special reference to its development in the early nineteenth century Oxford DPhil thesis (1970) to which this section is much indebtedGoogle Scholar.
4 Thompson, H. P., Thomas Bray (London 1954) p 109 Google Scholar.
5 [The Diary of a Country Parson, ed Beresford, J.], 5 vols (London 1926-31) 1 p 221 Google Scholar.
6 Bell, A., Sydney Smith, Rector of Foston 1806-29 (York 1972) p 13 Google Scholar.
7 Man versus Society in Eighteenth Century England, ed Clifford, C.J (London 1968) p 62 Google Scholar.
8 Speculum Dioceseos Lincolniensis 1705-23, ed Cole, R. E. G., LRS 4 (1912)Google Scholar.
9 Memoirs of a Royal Chaplain, ed Hartshorne, A. (London 1905) p 42 Google Scholar.
10 Wiltshire Returns to the Bishop’s Visitation Queries 1783, ed Ransome, M., Wiltshire Record Society 27 (Devizes 1971) p 9 Google Scholar.
11 McClatchey, [D.], [Oxfordshire Clergy 1777-1869] (Oxford 1960) p 28 Google Scholar.
12 Beresford 1 p 173.
13 Warne, A., Church and Society in Devon in the Eighteenth Century, Leeds PhD thesis (1963) p 62 Google Scholar.
14 HMC 5 Report pt 1 p 374, Letter to Mr Richard Coffin (8 October 1694).
15 Ketton-Cremer, [R. W.], [Country Neighbourhood] (London 1951) p 117 Google Scholar.
16 A Charge delivered to the Clergy at the Primary Visitation of Lewis Lord Bishop of Norwich (Norwich 1784) pp 10-11.
17 Linnell, [C. L. S.], [Some East Anglian Clergy] (London 1961) p 101 Google Scholar.
18 Ketton-Cremer p 206.
19 Norwich, N[orfolk and] N[orwich] R[ecord] O[ffice], N[orwich] D[iocesan] R[ecords] VIS 16 Comperta Book for Visitation of 1735.
20 Norwich, NNRO MS 11927 a and b 34D Diary of the Revd Joseph Charles.
21 Norwich, NNRO, NDR, SUN 16 A petition by the Churchwardens and Inhabitants of Wells to the Chancellor (April 1747).
22 “Norwich, NNRO, NDR VIS 16 Comperta Book for Visitation of 1735.
23 McClatchey p 31 quotes Addington’s speech on behalf of the clerical residence bill in 1802 ‘The attention of the House was not so much called to compel the residence of the clergy as to prevent them from being persecuted by informers’ (Hansard 36, cols 472, 88s).
24 Norwich, NNRO, NDR VIS 26 and 27 Visitation Queries 1777.
25 Norwich, NNRO, NDR VIS 28, 29, 30 Visitation Queries 1784.
26 Norwich, NNRO, NDR SUN 16 Act Book of the Court of Audience of the Rt Revd Lewis Lord Bishop of Norwich.
27 Norwich, NNRO, NDR VIS 40, 42, 44 Visitation Queries 1806. If these figures are compared with figures obtained from the return made to the house of commons in 1805 (NNRO NRM 1) the 1805 figures are found to be much lower, that is, only twenty-two of the non-resident incumbents without curates live in nearby towns and serve thirty parishes in the neighbourhood. There is unlikely to have been such a marked change in such a short period of time which suggests that the accuracy of the Returns for Non Residence should be questioned.
28 Ward, W. R., ‘The Tithe Question in England in the Early Nineteenth Century’, JEH 16 (1965) p 72 Google Scholar.
29 Calendar of Cornish Glebe Terriers 1673-1731, ed Potts, R., Devon and Cornwall Record Society, ns 19 (Torquay 1974) p 19 Google Scholar.
30 Norwich, NNRO, NDR PHM 1 A Register of Mortgages made under an Act to Promote the Residence of the Parochial Clergy 17 Geo III.
31 Beresford 1 p 231.
32 For a description of the social attractions of Norwich see Fawcett, T., The Culture of Later Georgian Norwich : a conflict of evidence, University of East Anglia Bulletin, ns 5 no 4 (Norwich 1972) pp 1-14Google Scholar.
33 Ketton-Cremer p 117.
34 Linnell p 88.
35 Norwich, NNRO, NDR VIS 28 Visitation Queries 1784.
36 Davies, G. C. B., Truro Clerical Club 1750-60, Church Quarterly Review 145 (London 1947-8)p 83 Google Scholar.
37 Norwich NNRO MS 11927 a and b 34D Diary of the Revd Joseph Charles.
38 Sixteen of the incumbents without curates who served parishes in the locality in 1784 lived in Norwich and five of them also held city parishes.