No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Unreasonable and Unbecoming”: Self-Recommendation and Place-Seeking in the Church of England, 1700–1900*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Extract
Ecclesiastical patrons used a broad range of criteria to select clergy for preferment to livings and dignities in the Church of England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The qualifications of nobility, of academic standing, of services to the Church and State, of a patron's influence and strong churchmanship were among those that were most common. But a further factor affected advancement: that of self-recommendation. Ecclesiastical historians, particularly those of the Victorian era, have tended to see this as a morally questionable, if not corrupt, method of gaining advancement—and one which was primarily a feature of the Hanoverian Church. Indeed the traditional view of ecclesiastical history, though increasingly under challenge, regarded the Hanoverian and Victorian Churches as standing in strong contrast to each other. This contrast has tended to include the quality and recruitment of the clergy. Yet, there was no fundamental difference in the methods used by patrons in distributing livings and offices in the Church in these two centuries. Crown livings and senior posts in the Church were distributed by ministers and patrons who were prone to favor, influence, and persuasion. It was to this system that self-recommendation was directed, in the hope of securing preferment. Because of the success of personal solicitation, self-recommendation remained a factor in nominations to places in the Church throughout the nineteenth century. Even when it was declared unacceptable for the appointment to senior Church offices by Gladstone in 1881, self-recommendation remained in existence in a covert form.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1995
Footnotes
*
I am pleased to acknowledge the encouragement and advice of Professor Jeremy Black.
References
1 An example of this commonly held interpretation is Brown, C. K. Francis, A History of the English Clergy 1800–1900 (London, 1953), p. 122 Google Scholar. It is also explicit throughout Abbey's, Charles The English Church and its Bishops, 2 vols., (London, 1887)Google Scholar. One of the most recent writers on the subject of episcopal history has defined self-recommendation as “blatant canvassing”: Denny, Barbara, King's Bishop (London, 1985), p. 202 Google Scholar.
2 Hitschberg, Daniel, “A Social History of The Anglican Episcopate 1660–1760” (Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan, 1976), p. 98ffGoogle Scholar. The same view is echoed in Taylor, Stephen, “Church and State in England in the Mid-eighteenth Century: The Newcastle Years, 1742-62” (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1987)Google Scholar.
3 Curtis, L. P., Chichester Towers (New Haven, 1966), p. 85 Google Scholar.
4 Virgin, Peter, The Church in an Age of Negligence (Cambridge, 1989), p. 140 Google Scholar.
5 Sykes, Norman, Church and State in England in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1934), p. 205 Google Scholar.
6 For examples of requests see: Hirschberg, “A Social History of the Anglican Episcopate,” ch. 1. Gibson, William “Patterns of Nepotism and Kinship in the Eighteenth Century Church,” in The Journal of Religious History 14, 4 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, demonstrates the way in which there was an advantageous “multiplier” effect in the distribution of Church patronage within the client-patron relationship.
7 Markham, Charles, A Memoir of Archbishop Markham (Oxford, 1906), p. 27 Google Scholar.
8 Arnold, Frederick, Our Bishops and Deans, 2 vols. (London, 1874), 2: 209 Google Scholar. Pearce, E. H., The Sons of the Clergy 1655–1901 (London, 1904), passim Google Scholar. For a plethora of examples of direct application for privilege of founders' kin, see Squibb, G. D., Founders' Kin (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar.
9 For Greene see Fox, Levi, ed., The Correspondence of the Rev. Joseph Greene (London, 1965), p. 79 Google Scholar. Where not otherwise cited all sources for Newcastle's patronage are quoted in Barnes, Donald “The Duke of Newcastle, Ecclesiastical Minister,” in The Pacific Historical Review 3 (1934): 172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Curtis, , Chichester Towers, p. 84ffGoogle Scholar.
10 The Lives of Dr Edward Pocock…Dr Zachary Pearce…Dr Thomas Newton…and the Rev. Philip Skelton…. 2 vols. (London, 1816), 1: 81 Google Scholar. British Library, Additional Mss. 32,709 f S3. (Hereafter cited as B.L., Add. Mss.) Hughes, Edward, ed., The Letters of Spencer Cowper, Dean of Durham 1746–74, Surtees Society 165 (London, 1956), p. 31ffGoogle Scholar. The Life of Dr Edward Pocock, 1: 389–90Google Scholar.
11 For Wilson see Linnell, C. L. S., ed., The Diaries of Thomas Wilson DD (London, 1964), pp. 180, 125Google Scholar. Fox, , The Correspondence of Joseph Greene, pp. 83–84 Google Scholar.
12 Markham, , A Memoir of Archbishop Markham, pp. 26–27 Google Scholar. McCann, Timothy, ed., The Correspondence of the Dukes of Richmond and Newcastle, 1724–50, Sussex Record Society 73 (1982–1983): 232 Google Scholar.
13 Arnold, , Our Bishops and Deans, 2: 210–11Google Scholar.
14 Gibson, Donald, ed., A Parson in the Vale of the White Horse (Gloucester, 1982), pp. 39, 100–01Google Scholar.
15 For Wilson, see Linnell, , The Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 133ffGoogle Scholar. For Skelton, see The Life of Dr Edward Pocock, 2: passim. For Brockbank and Jones, see Trappes-Lomax, R., ed., The Diary and Letter Book of Thomas Brockbank, 1671–1709, Chetham Society (1930): 110 Google Scholar and Christie, O. F., ed., The Diary of the Rev. William Jones, 1777–1821 (London, 1929), p. 106 Google Scholar. This is a point that deserves some emphasis: clergy should not be judged according to the quality of the system that appointed them. Those judged to have come to the bench of bishops from the worst of motives and by the worst of routes were on occasion good diocesans. An example is Edward Willes: see Gibson, William “The Decipherer-Bishop: The Career of Edward Willes,” in The British Journal for Eighteenth Century Studies 12 (Spring 1989)Google Scholar.
16 Part of the Thomlinson Diary is published in Six North Country Diaries, Surtees Society (1910): 161–64Google Scholar for entries for December 16th and 31st, 1721 and February 6th 1722 (n.s.). The remainder of the diary is in ms: B.L., Add. Mss. 22,560 entries for December 20 1721 and January 10 1722 (n.s.).
17 B.L., Add. Mss. 32,719 to 32,886, passim. For details of the remarkable Hibbins-Newcastle correspondence see Gibson, William “‘Importunate Cries of Misery’: The Correspondence of Lucius Henry Hibbins & The Duke of Newcastle 1740-1758,” in The British Library Journal 17 (Spring 1991)Google Scholar. It seems clear that Hibbins had quite realistic encouragement from the dukes of Newcastle and Richmond, and they cynically abandoned him to abject poverty. For Austen's claims, see Curtis, Chichester Towers, pp. 93–96 Google Scholar. For Blacow's claims see Robson, R. J., The Oxfordshire Election of 1754 (London, 1949), p. 164 Google Scholar. For Crigan, see Christie, The Diary of William Jones, pp. 189–91Google Scholar.
18 For Bartelot see B.L., Add. Mss. 32,698 ff 92-93 and Curtis, , Chichester Towers, p. 59 Google Scholar. For Greene, see Fox, , The Correspondence of Joseph Greene, p. 90 Google Scholar. For Nicholson, see James, F. O., North Country Bishop (New Haven, 1956), p. 119 Google Scholar.
19 Hirschberg, Daniel, “The Government and Church Patronage, 1660-1760,” The Journal of British Studies (1981): 126–27Google Scholar. McCann, , The Correspondence of Richmond and Newcastle, p. 292 Google Scholar. Salmon, W. A., Churches and Royal Patronage (Cowbridge, 1983), pp. 52–53 Google Scholar. Public Records Office, Lord Chancellors' Office C196/1-138. Since the Reformation, applications for patronage in the lord chancellor's gift had been a common practice.
20 For the legitimacy of nepotism, see Gibson, “Patterns of Nepotism and Kinship.” For Woodward, see Gibson, A Parson in the Vale of the White Horse. An equally important point is that clergy were often scrupulous in declining advancement as well as seeking it, see Gibson, William, The Anglican Achievement 1689–1800: The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England (Lewiston, 1995), ch. 2Google Scholar.
21 Quoted in Brown, Francis, A History of the English Clergy 1800–1900, p. 94 Google Scholar.
22 B.L., Add. Mss. 38,253 f 342.
23 Ibid, 38,300 f 60.
24 Ibid, ff 61-64.
25 Ibid, 38,301 f 116.
26 Steer, Francis, ed., The Letters of J. Hawkins and S. Lysons (Chichester, 1966), p. 55 Google Scholar.
27 B.L., Add. Mss. 38, 255 f 57.
28 Ibid, 38, 286 f 284.
29 Ibid, 38,299 f 27.
30 Thistlethwaite, M., The Memoirs of Henry Bathurst (London, 1853), p. 128 Google Scholar.
31 B.L., Add. Mss. 38, 302 f 26.
32 For details of the remarkable evolutionary changes in church patronage begun under Liverpool, see Gibson, William “The Tory Governments and Church Patronage 1812-1830,” in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 41 (April 1990)Google Scholar.
33 Southampton University Archives, Wellington Papers, WP1/922/14.
34 Ibid, WP1/937/29. Pepys had strong family connections to fall back on if political promises did not bear fruit.
35 Ibid, WP1/1083/9, WP1/937/7 & WP1/1023/11.
36 Coplestone, see Whatley, Richard, ed., The Remains of the Late Edward Coplestone DD… (London, 1854), p. 2 Google Scholar. For Hall, see B. L., Add. Mss. 38,574 f 176.
37 Southampton University Archives, Palmerston Papers GC/CA/412. Black, Jeremy “A Regency Regius: The Historian Edward Nares,” Oxoniensia 52 (1987): 177 Google Scholar.
38 For an example of how these reforms affected a Cathedral Chapter, see Gibson, William “Continuity and Change, the Chapter of Winchester in the Nineteenth Century,” The Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 45 (1989)Google Scholar.
39 Lambeth Palace Library, Longley MS. 7, f 87.
40 B.L., Add. Mss. 40,515 f 64-65.
41 For Croft see Welch, P. J. “Blomfield and Peel: A Study in Cooperation between Church and State 1841-1846,” in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 12 (1961): 76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Butler, see B.L., Add. Mss. 40,411 f 11, and Add. Ms. 34,590 f 168.
42 Southampton University Archives, Palmerston Papers, MPC/1593. Hart, A. T. and Carpenter, Edward, The Nineteenth Century Country Parson (Shrewsbury, 1961), p. 120 Google Scholar. Ironically, it was Gladstone who eventually offered Seymour a canonry at Worcester.
43 MacDonnell, J. C., The Life and Correspondence of William Connor Magee, 2 vols. (London, 1896) 1: 197 Google Scholar.
44 Bahlman, Dudley, “The Queen, Mr Gladstone & Church Patronage,” in Victorian Studies 3 (June 1960): 353 Google Scholar. Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church, 2 vols. (London, 1968) 1: 475 Google Scholar.
45 Trollope, Anthony, The Clergymen of the Church of England (Leicester, 1974), p. 96 Google Scholar.
46 B.L., Add. Mss. 44,425 f 235. Significantly, Durnford's biographer, reflecting the values of the later era, altered the details of the nomination, claiming erroneously that it was Gladstone who offered Chichester to Dumford and it was Gladstone who recognized that Dumford would prefer a less taxing see. Stephens, Leslie, The Life of Bishop Durnford (London, 1899), p. 106 Google Scholar. For Gladstone's detailed dealings in church patronage, see the diary of his secretary: Bahlman, Dudley, ed., The Diary of Edward Hamilton, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar. Gibson, William, “Gladstone and the Llandaff Vacancy of 1882,” in The Transactions of the Cymmrodorion (1987)Google Scholar, gives an insight into the lengths that Gladstone went to in order to get the right man for the right see.
47 B.L., Add. Mss. 44,545, f 30.
48 Ibid, 44, 483 f 192.
49 Though late in the century and into the twentieth the archbishops of Canterbury received direct applications. E.g. Lambeth Palace Library, Temple MS. 15, ff 295-97.
50 Columbia University, New York, Butler Library, MS. X825T34-56, vol. 1 ff 91-93.
51 Bateson, Mary, “Clerical Preferment Under the Duke of Newcastle,” in The English Historical Review 7 (1892): 685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Gibson, William, “The Social Origins and Education of an Elite: The Nineteenth Century Episcopate,” in The History of Education 20 (No 2 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Idem “The Professionalization of an Elite: The Nineteenth Century Episcopate,” in Albion 23, 3 (Fall 1991).
53 B.L., Add. Mss. 40,489 f 283.
54 For Wilberforce, see Ditchfield, P. H., The Old Time Parson (London, 1905), p. 65 Google Scholar. Hart, A. T. and Carpenter, Edward, The Nineteenth Century Country Parson, p. 50 Google Scholar.
55 B.L., Add. Mss. 44,433 f 34; ibid, 44,435 f 95; ibid, 44,436 f 165. Edward Bickersteth was indeed unfortunate in losing two daughters, Alice and Irene, in 1872. They were soon followed by their mother. The book giving an account of his child was The Master's Call Home. Bickersteth, S., The Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth (London, 1901), p. 11nGoogle Scholar. B.L., Add. Mss. 44,441 f 213; ibid, 44,438 ff 149, 159; ibid, 44,448 ff 113, 167; ibid, 44,452 f 251.
56 B.L., Add. Mss. 44, 489 f 162, and Aglionby, F. K., The Life of Edward Henry Bickersteth DD (London, 1907), p. 54 Google Scholar. Russell, G. W. E., A Short History of The Evangelical Movement (London, 1915), p. 152 Google Scholar.
57 For Bardsley, see B.L., Add. Mss. 44,509 f 19. For Magee, see MacDonnell, , The Life and Correspondence of Archbishop Magee, 2: 296 Google Scholar.
58 Abbey, , The English Church and its Bishops, 1: 372 Google Scholar.
59 Bateson, , “Clerical Preferment under the Duke of Newcastle,” p. 685 Google Scholar.
60 Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage 1500–1800 (London, 1979), p. 160ffGoogle Scholar.
61 Winstanley, D., The University of Cambridge in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1958), p. 11 Google Scholar.
62 Quoted in Russell, Anthony, The Clerical Profession (London, 1980), p. 42 Google Scholar.
63 Bateson, , “Clerical Preferment under the Duke of Newcastle,” p. 685 Google Scholar.