No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Case of the Reverend James Shore
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Extract
The two hundred or so evangelical clergymen who seceded from the Church of England into Protestant Dissent during the first half of the nineteenth century often paid a considerable price for their action. By crossing the subtle social boundary between Anglican priesthood and Nonconformist ministry they forfeited status and often, no doubt, income. A number vanished into comparative obscurity as pastors of small chapels, whether as ministers of a major denomination, Strict and Particular Baptists, Christian Brethren, or preachers in some unlabelled and impoverished chapel. If not so severely penalised for their secession as many of their colleagues who went to Rome, particularly those with wives for whom entry into the Roman priesthood was closed, they usually came off the worse in temporal terms for following the dictates of conscience. This, no doubt, they fully anticipated. What was not anticipated, however, was the imposition of a legal penalty for their act of secession. Though Anglican secessions to Rome or Dissent were not infrequent, their legality was apparently seldom if ever questioned. Liberal Churchmen like Theophilus Lindsey, who had abandoned the establishment for Unitarianism during the eighteenth century, had set up their chapels with impunity. In 1831 the evangelical William Tiptaft received a threat from Thomas Burgess, the bishop of Salisbury, upon seceding from the parish of Sutton Courtney, Berkshire, but nothing came of it. Those who left the via media for Rome were assumed to be acting within the framework of the law when they took up a new ministry as priests of another apostolic confession.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
1 See Carter, Grayson, ‘Evangelical seceders from the Church of England, c. 1800–55’, unpubl. Dphil diss, Oxford 1990 Google Scholar.
2 See Adams, P. A., ‘Converts to the Roman Catholic Church in England, circa 1830–70’, unpubl. BLitt diss. Oxford 1977 Google Scholar.
3 See Lindsey, Theophilus, The apologia of Theophilus Lindsey, London 1774 Google Scholar.
4 Letter of 14 Mar. 1832: Tiptaft, William, Two letters addressed to the bishop of Salisbury, Abingdon 1832, 7 Google Scholar; Philpot, J. C., William Tiptaft, 3rd edn, Leicester 1972, 67–73 Google Scholar.
5 Shore was born on 31 July 1805 (baptised 26 Sept.) at Haselbury Plucknett, Somerset, the third son of Thomas Shore, Esq. (c. 1776–1833), merchant of Nottington, Broadwey, Dorset, and his wife, Frances (c. 1776–1828). He was educated at Norton, Somerset, and Dorchester, Dorset. On 6 Feb. 1824 he was admitted pensioner at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge (BA, 1828; MA, 1831). On 27 June 1827 he married Susannah Gream (1800–68) at St Andrew's Plymouth, by whom he had three daughters. Shore was ordained deacon by William Carey, bishop of Exeter, on 19 Oct. 1828 (priest on 25 Oct. 1829), to serve as curate at the parish of Berry Pomeroy, Devon. In 1830 he became minister of the chapel-at-ease at nearby Bridgetown, where he remained until the summer of 1862: Venn, John and Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigienses, Cambridge 1940–1954, v. 501 Google Scholar; Shore, James, A statement of the proceedings of the bishop of Exeter in the case of the Revd James Shore, MA, London 1848, 4 Google Scholar; Devon Record Office (hereinafter cited as DRO), baptismal records, Bridgetown chapel.
6 Sir John Dodson claimed in Apr. 1845 that Shore's case was the first instance of a clergyman being prosecuted for seceding from the Church of England since the Reformation: Notes of cases in ecclesiastical and maritime courts, ed. Thornton, Thomas, London 1843–1850, iv. 594 Google Scholar.
7 Phillpotts, (1778–1869), bishop of Exeter from 1831 to 1869, was a Tory High Churchman of the ‘old school’Google Scholar.
8 See Needham, R. W., The church and the synod, London 1851 Google Scholar.
9 Conybeare, W. J., ‘Bishop Phillpotts’, Edinburgh Review, 1852, 75 Google Scholar. For a response see Phillpotts, Henry, A letter to Sir Robert Inglis, London 1852 Google Scholar.
10 Letter to Holland, Lady, 25 Nov. 1834, in Selected letters of Sydney Smith, ed. Smith, Nowell C., Oxford 1981, 153 Google Scholar.
11 Pearson, Hesketh, The Smith of Smiths, 5th edn, London 1945, 236 Google Scholar.
12 Merryweather, F. S., History of the Free Church of England, London 1873, 66–82 Google Scholar; Thoresby, T. E., The Free Church of England: its origin, constitution, doctrines, and objects, London 1873, 57 Google Scholar; Skeats, Herbert S. and Miall, Charles S., History of the free Churches of England 1688–1891, London 1891, 511–12Google Scholar; Vaughan, Frank, A history of the Free Church of England, Bath 1938, 22–5Google Scholar; Brockett, Allan, Nonconformity in Exeter, 1650–1875, Manchester 1962, 211–12Google Scholar; Price, A. E., The organization of the Free Church of England, 2nd edn, London 1908, 11 Google Scholar; Peaston, A. Elliott, The Prayer Book tradition in the free Churches, London 1964, 70–87 Google Scholar. A second edn of Vaughan, , A history of the Free Church of England (Bath 1960) includes (pp. 27–36)Google Scholar a brief chapter on the case, a drawing of Shore and a photograph of Bridgetown chapel.
13 Archer, Thomas, William Ewart Gladstone and his contemporaries, London 1898, ii. 170 Google Scholar; Lambert, Richard S., The Cobbett of the west, London 1939, 132–59, 170–1Google Scholar; Davies, G. C. B., Henry Phillpotts bishop of Exeter, 1778–1869, London 1954, 220–9Google Scholar.
14 Robertson, John Elliot P., Reports of cases argued and determined in the ecclesiastical courts at Doctors' commons, London 1845, 382–99Google Scholar; Adolphus, John Leycester and Ellis, Thomas Flower, Queen's Bench reports, London 1848, 640–73Google Scholar; Brodrick, George C. and Fremantle, William H., A collection of the judgements of the judicial committee of the privy council in ecclesiastical cases related to doctrine and discipline, London 1865, 44–9Google Scholar; SirPhillimore, Robert, The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England, London 1873, ii. 1184 Google Scholar; Cripps, C. A., A practical treatise on the law relating to church and clergy, 6th edn, London 1886, 19–20, 42, 580Google Scholar; Ecclesiastical law, ed. J. T. Edgerley (repr. from Hakbury's Laws of England), London 1957, 199n., 186n., 217n.
15 Rodes, Robert E., Law and modernisation in the Church of England, Notre Dame 1991 Google Scholar; Waddams, S. W., Law, politics and the Church of England, Cambridge 1992 Google Scholar.
16 Edward Adolphus Seymour, eleventh duke of Somerset (1775–1855). Little is known about the duke's theological leanings. As a Whig he appeared, in matters of religion as in politics, an advocate of personal freedom and liberty: The dictionary of national biography, ed. Lee, Sidney, London 1909, xvii. 1253–4Google Scholar.
17 In the parish of Berry Pomeroy. At the time, the parish contained around 200 families, almost all of which conformed to the Established Church: ‘The diocese of Exeter in 1821’, ed. Cooke, Michael, Report of the Devon and Cornwall Record Society n.s. iv (1960), ii. 19Google Scholar.
18 Watson, J. H., Tear book of St John the Evangelist, Bridgetown, Totnes 1952 Google Scholar.
19 Mr Maberley to Mr Barnes, 18 Aug. 1832, in Phillpotts, , Letter to Sir Robert Inglis, 56 Google Scholar; Phillpotts, Henry, The case of the Revd James Shore, 4th edn, London 1849, 5 Google Scholar.
20 Vaughan, , History of the Free Church of England (2nd edn, p. 30)Google Scholar suggests that the chapel was first licensed by Phillpotts for a two-year period.
21 Ellis, , Queen's Bench reports, 650 Google Scholar.
22 One member of Shore's congregation testified before the Court of Arches that the chapel was licensed by the bishop in Nov. 1832 and that Shore was licensed to officiate there in Apr. 1833: Robertson, , Reports of cases, 394 Google Scholar. Shore was paid £200 a year by the duke for serving at the chapel and lived with his family at I Seymour Place, Bridgetown: DRO, MSS 1392 M/L1946/15; 1392 M/L39/3; 1851 Census.
23 Davies, , Henry Phillpotts, 222 Google Scholar.
24 He served as vicar of Berry Pomeroy from 1781 to 1834. During this time he resided at Blagdon, some two miles away, and performed no clerical duties, content to leave such matters to his curate: ‘Diocese of Exeter in 1821’, ii. 19.
25 Cosens was the son of William Cosens of Ipplepen, Devon. He matriculated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, 10 Mar. 1818, aged 26 (BA, 1824; MA 1825): Foster, Joseph, Alumni Oxonienses, Oxford 1888, i. 300 Google Scholar. Cosens published a rather one-sided account of the affair which made little or no impact upon the religious public: Cosens, W. B., The case of the Revd James Shore, as between the patron and the vicar, in a letter to his parishioners, Exeter 1849 Google Scholar.
26 English Churchman, 1848, 270.
27 Phillpotts, , Case of the Revd James Shore, 15 Google Scholar.
28 Letter from Brown, , dated 29 12 1848, Eclectic Review, 1849, 617–18Google Scholar.
29 Lambert, , The Cobbett of the west, 132–3Google Scholar. The terms of the trust required the trustees to hold an election in the parish and to nominate the successful candidate as incumbent.
30 Ibid. 133.
31 Testimony by the bishop, Phillpotts v. Latimer: Eclectic Review, 1849, 613.
32 Shore, , Statement of the proceedings, 5 Google Scholar.
33 Ibid. This was denied by Phillpotts, however, who claimed that he gave Cosens no encouragement on the question, and ‘made him understand that he must act altogether on his own judgement’ in the matter: Case of the Revd James Shore, 17.
34 Eardley, Culling, An appeal to the country on behalf of the Revd James Shore, 2nd edn, Torquay 1849, 4 Google Scholar.
35 Free Church of England Magazine, 1869, 28–9.
36 Shore to Phillpotts, 13 Nov. 1843, in Phillpotts, , Case of the Revd James Shore, 21 Google Scholar.
37 Shore to Phillpotts, 13 Nov. 1843, ibid. 20–1.
38 Phillpotts to Shore, 13 Nov. 1843, ibid. 22.
39 Eardley, , Appeal to the country, 4 Google Scholar; Merryweather, , History of the Free Church of England, 67 Google Scholar. Little is known about the identity of these petitioners. Presumably they were members of Shore's congregation which numbered around 800. It remains uncertain whether prior to attending Bridgetown chapel the petitioners worshipped at the parish church at Berry Pomeroy (two miles away), the parish church at Totnes (across the river), or a local dissenting meeting-house. In any case, the number of signatures on this petition bears testimony to the extent of Shore's popularity in the community. Between 1834 and 1853 the pew rents from Bridgetown chapel averaged approximately £140 per year: DRO, MS 1392 M/L Rentals 5.
40 English Churchman, 1848, 270; Robertson, , Reports of cases, 388 Google Scholar; Shore, , Statement of the proceedings, 7 Google Scholar. Davies, , Henry Phillpotts, incorrectly identifies (p. 224)Google Scholarthe date as 16 Feb.
41 Shore to Phillpotts, 28 Feb. 1844; Eardley, Appeal to the country, app. A; English Churchman, 1848, 270.
42 On 7 Mar; served on 13 Mar: Robertson, , Reports of cases, 388 Google Scholar; Ellis, , Queen's Bench reports, 643, 650Google Scholar.
43 I William and Mary, c. 18; later, 52 Geo. III. c. 155, sections 4 and 5: Robertson, , Reports of cases, 388 Google Scholar; Shore, , Statement of the proceedings, 7 Google Scholar.
44 Shore to Barnes, 22 Mar. 1844, in Shore, James, The case of the Revd James Shore, MA, by himself, London 1849, 65 Google Scholar.
45 Barnes to Shore, 6 Apr. 1844 (emphasis added), in ibid. 66.
46 Free Church of England Magazine, 1869, 28–9.
47 Davis, C. H., The English church canons of 1604, London 1869, 75 Google Scholar. If violated, the canons also carried civil penalties (fine or imprisonment), which could be inflicted by the ecclesiastical courts.
48 Conybeare, , ‘Bishop Phillpotts’, 75 Google Scholar.
49 Ibid. 75–9, 83–4.
50 Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 4–29 Google Scholar. See also the case of Titchmarch v. Chapman, 1844.
51 Henry, , lord bishop of Exeter, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Exeter, London 1842, 58–9Google Scholar.
52 Ibid. 68–9.
53 The case was officially known as Barnes v. Shore.
54 The diocesan court had been amended by the Church Discipline Act of 1840 (3–4 Viet. c. 86). After being charged a clergyman was required to appear before a preliminary commission, where the bishop would either hear the case in person with three assessors (one of whom must be a lawyer), or send it by letter of request to a provincial court: A dictionary of English church history, ed. Ollard, S. L., 2nd edn, London 1919, 157 Google Scholar.
55 Eardely, , Appeal to the country, 5 Google Scholar.
56 Shore, , Case of the Revd James Shore, 31 Google Scholar.
57 Christian Observer, 1846, 349–50.
58 Robertson, , Reports of cases, 388–90Google Scholar; Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 45 Google Scholar.
59 Robertson, , Reports of cases, 388–9Google Scholar. Fust (1778–1852) was dean of the arches, a privy councillor, and Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
60 Ibid. 389–90; Anon, , The English reports, Edinburgh 1900, clxiii. 1074–80Google Scholar.
61 Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 45 Google Scholar; English Churchman, 1848, 270; Robertson, , Reports of cases, 390 Google Scholar.
62 Ibid. 390–9; Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 46–9Google Scholar.
63 Robertson, , Reports of cases, 398–99Google Scholar; Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 48–9Google Scholar.
64 Robertson, , Reports of cases, 399 Google Scholar; Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 49 Google Scholar.
65 Hansard, 3rd ser. lxxxvii. 869–70.
66 Edward Adolphus Seymour (1804–85), twelfth duke of Somerset, was Liberal MP for Totnes between 1834 and 1855. He served as First Lord of the Admiralty between 1859 and 1866: Letters, remains, and memoirs of Edward Adolphus Seymour, twelfth duke of Somerset, KG, ed. Mallock, W. D. and Ramsden, G., London 1893 Google Scholar; DNB xvii. 1253–4. In religious matters, as in politics, he was a determined liberal. He published Christian theology and modern scepticism, London 1872 Google Scholar, which was attacked by, amongst others, M'Caul, Joseph in The duke of Somerset's recent attack upon the Bible criticised, London 1872 Google Scholar.
67 Lambert, , The Cobbett of the west, 138 Google Scholar.
68 Ibid. 139, citing Western Times, 25 July 1846.
69 Because of the seriousness of the case, Latimer would have been guilty of criminal charges if the jury had found for Phillpotts.
70 Davies, , Henry Phillpotts, 226–9Google Scholar.
71 See Williams, E. Neville, The eighteenth-century constitution, Cambridge 1960, 44 Google Scholar.
72 Robertson, , Reports of cases, 389 Google Scholar; Quarterly Review, 1849, 43.
73 Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 45 Google Scholar.
74 Ibid. 49n.
75 It read ‘That every person dissenting from the Church…and in holy orders…being a preacher…of any congregation of Dissenting Protestants, who, if he scruple to declare and subscribe a declaration…shall be…hereby declared to be entitled to all exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages granted to Protestant Dissenting ministers…and shall also be exempted from any imprisonment…for preaching or officiating in any congregation of Protestant Dissenters’: Williams, , Eighteenth-century constitution, 345–6Google Scholar.
76 Quarterly Review, 1849, 43.
77 Can v. Marsh involved proceedings against a clergyman for preaching in a parish church without the incumbent's permission: ibid. 44; Robertson, , Reports of cases, 389 Google Scholar.
78 Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 44 Google Scholar.
79 Eardley, , Appeal to the country, 6–7 Google Scholar.
80 Edinburgh Review, 1849, 148–9; Nonconformist, 1848, 668. Sir John also referred to the case of Home Tooke which involved the legality of a clergyman sitting in the Commons. In 1801 Home Tooke was elected MP for the rotten borough of Old Sarum. Shortly after taking his seat, a bill was rushed through both Houses prohibiting clergymen from the Commons. Uncharacteristically Home Tooke resigned his seat without protest at the end of the session: Hansard, xxxv. 1323–1420.
81 As the result of the Bangorian controversy. The English canons continued in their unreformed state until 1865.
82 English Churchman, 1848, 269; Nonconformist, 1848, 268.
83 Phillpotts, , Case of the Revd James Shore, 30 Google Scholar; English Churchman, 1849, 254, 262. Cf. Nonconformist, 1849, 59.
84 In June 1846.
85 Evangelical Magazine, 1849, 201, 253.
86 English Churchman, 1848, 766; 1849, 181.
87 Ibid. 1849, 181.
88 See Fremantle, , Collection of the judgements, 44–9Google Scholar.
89 Vaughan, , History of the Free Church of England, 24 Google Scholar; Price, , Organization of the Free Church of England, 11 Google Scholar.
90 Shore to Thoresby, 9 Mar. 1849; Vaughan, , History of the Free Church of England, 24 Google Scholar; Free Church of England, 57.
91 The Times, 10 Mar. 1849.
92 Letter of Barnes to The Times, 12 Mar. 1849.
93 Including E. P. Bouverie, who denounced it on the floor of the Commons on 21 Mar. 1849: Hansard, 3rd ser. ciii. 1073; Fitzgerald, John, An appeal to pious and devoted clergymen, London 1851, 33–4Google Scholar.
94 Phillpotts, Case of the Revd James Shore.
95 Ibid. 3–4.
96 Ibid. 30.
97 Shore, Case of the Revd James Shore.
98 Ibid. 6–11.
99 Nonconformist, 1849, 198; Record, 15 Mar. 1849.
100 Ibid. 299; Eclectic Review, 1849, 777. Phillpotts, however, stated that he gave no direction for enforcing the decrees of the courts; neither did he do anything to prevent their being enforced: Phillpotts, , Case of the Revd James Shore, 31 Google Scholar.
101 The Times, 5 May 1849.
102 Nonconformist, 1849, 418.
103 Ibid. 438; Record, 14 June 1849.
104 DRO, MSS 1392 M/L54/3; 1392 M/L52/5.
105 Lambert, , The Cobbett of the west, 171 Google Scholar.
106 The Times, 10 Jan. 1850.
107 High Peak News, 15 Aug. 1874.
108 A Devon anthology ed. Simmons, Jack, London 1971, 185 Google Scholar.
109 DRO, Baptismal records, Bridgetown Chapel.
110 Taylor, D. and Bush, D., The golden age of hotels, London 1974, 52 Google Scholar.
111 Buckley, Joseph, Modern Buxton, London 1886, 34–6Google Scholar; Leach, John, The book of Buxton, Buckingham 1987, 77 Google Scholar.
112 Opened in 1852. See Buckley, Joseph, Recollections of the late John Smedley, Manchester–London 1888 Google Scholar, and Matlock Bath as it was, and is… with a short sketch of the personal history of John Smedley, London 1866 Google Scholar.
113 Smedley, John, Historical sketch of the ancient and modern church of Britain, Derby 1854 Google Scholar, The ministerial office and mode of worship of the Nonconformists, and that of the Church of England considered, Derby 1854 Google Scholar, and Remarks on the deficient mode in which the Bible is read in the Church of England, London 1855 Google Scholar.
114 Buckley, , Modern Buxton, 35 Google Scholar.
115 Ibid; Marchington, Trevor, ‘The development of Buxton and Matlock since 1800’, unpubl. MA diss., Birkbeck College, London 1960, 108–9Google Scholar.
116 Taylor, and Bush, , Golden age, 52 Google Scholar; Harrod's directory of Derbyshire, London 1870 Google Scholar; White's directory of Derbyshire, Sheffield 1872 Google Scholar; Derbyshire, Derbyshire Record Office, 1871 Census. Hydropathy was first practised in England at Ben Rhydding near Ilkley, West Riding, where Smedley was cured of typhoid; afterwards he became an ardent practitioner himself. See Leach, , Book of Buxton, 77 Google Scholar. The Malvern House Hotel was later known as the Buxton Hydropathic Ltd., and still later the Spa Hotel.
117 Langham, Mike and Wells, Colin, Buxton, a pictorial history, Guildford 1993, 93–4Google Scholar.
118 Marchington, , ‘Development of Buxton and Matlock since 1800’, 108–9Google Scholar.
119 White's directory of Derbyshire, 1872.
120 Then in the parish of Harlington Middle Quarter. See Kelly's directory of Derbyshire, London 1876 Google Scholar.
121 See Free Church of England Magazine, July 1867, 202; Aug. 1868, 223; Buckley, , Matlock Bath, 21–2, 72–3Google Scholar. It is uncertain who presided at these services after Shore's death. See Free Church of England Magazine, 1881, 146; 1882, 165; 1883, 180.
122 Buxton Advertiser 15 Aug. 1874; High Peak News, 15 Aug. 1874; Free Church ofEngland Magazine, Sept. 1874, 177.
123 Buxton Advertiser, 19 Aug. 1874; High Peak News, 22 Aug. 1874.
124 It has now been moved into an adjacent field owned by Street House Farm.
125 DRO, burial records, Bridgetown chapel.
126 Ibid. baptismal and burial records, Bridgetown chapel.
127 This occurred three years after the death of the twelfth duke and was undertaken by his son, the thirteenth duke. The church now lies within the benefice of Totnes.
128 Merryweather, , History of the Free Church of England, 68 Google Scholar; Peaston, , Prayer Book tradition, 71 Google Scholar.
129 Ibid. 80–7.
130 See Brockett, , Nonconformity in Exeter, 212–13Google Scholar. It remains uncertain whether the foundation and extension of the Free Church of England was primarily motivated by anti-Phillpotts sentiment, or was more broadly based. Its growth, however, was unquestionably aided by the tensions which developed between Phillpotts and the evangelicals in the diocese of Exeter.
131 See Fenwick, Richard David, ‘The Free Church of England, otherwise known as the Reformed Episcopal Church, c. 1845–c. 1927: a study in church growth and development’, unpubl. PhD diss., St David's College, Lampeter 1995 Google Scholar.
132 Vaughan, , History of the Free Church of England, 70–1Google Scholar.
133 Peaston, , Prayer Book tradition, 72 Google Scholar.
134 Vaughan, , History of the Free Church of England, 267 Google Scholar.
135 Circular of the Free Church of England No 2, Jan. 1864, 81–97.
136 Free Church of England Magazine, 1868, 344.
137 Bulteel's son married one of Shore's daughters in 1852, he officiated at Bridgetown at the wedding of another of Shore's daughters in 1858, and he officiated at Bridgetown at the funeral of another of Shore's daughters in 1860: DRO, marriage and burial records, Bridgetown chapel.
138 Peaston, , Prayer Book tradition, 75 Google Scholar.
139 Edinburgh Review, 1849, 151.
140 Hooker, Richard, Of the laws of ecclesiastical politie, London 1611, 411 Google Scholar.
141 See Wesley, John, A farther appeal to men of reason and religion, 4th edn, Bristol 1758, 88 Google Scholar.
142 Scott, Thomas, A letter…to the Rev Peter Roe, Kilkenny 1816, 26–7Google Scholar.
143 Christian Observer, 1846, 351.
144 Ibid. 1849, 216, 287, 288, 360.
145 See ibid. 1804, 482–3; 1836, 562; Gisborne, Thomas, A familiar survey of the Christian religion, and of history, London 1799, 538–40Google Scholar.
146 See Sykes, Norman, Old priest and new presbyter, Cambridge 1956 Google Scholar.
147 Purcell, Edmund Sheridan, The life of Cardinal Manning, London 1896, i. 629 Google Scholar; ii. 692n.
148 See Hare, Julian Charles, Letter to the Hon. Richard Cavendish, London 1850 Google Scholar.
149 See Musgrave, Thomas, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of York, London 1849 Google Scholar; Kaye, John, A charge to the clergy of the diocese of Lincoln, London 1852 Google Scholar; Coplestone, Edward, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Llandaff, London 1848 Google Scholar.
150 Machin, G. I. T., Politics and the churches in Great Britain 1832 to 1868, Oxford 1977, 181–228 Google Scholar.
151 Hansard, 3rd ser. cii. 1128–1113. Bouverie (1818–89) was the Liberal MP for Kilmarnock and the second son of the third earl of Radnor, W. P. Bouverie, the distinguished Whig politician. He later served on the Ecclesiastical Commission for England and supported the disestablishment of the Irish Church.
152 Ibid. 696–702, 1072–5; civ. 1120–39.
153 Ibid. cii. 701, 1074, 1132–3; ciii. 697–8, 700–1, 1075; civ. 1126–8, 1131–9.
154 Ibid. cii. 701.
155 Ibid. cii. 1075.
156 See Carter, ‘Evangelical seceders’, ch. iv.
157 Hansard, 3rd ser. ciii. 699–700.
158 Ibid. ciii. 697.
159 Ibid. ciii. 1073–4.
160 Ibid. ciii. 1074.
161 Ibid. cvii. 951–3.
162 Ibid. cvii. 949–53.
163 See Christian Observer, 1849, 216, 287, 288, 360; Nonconformist, 1849, 222, 229; Eardley, , Appeal to the country, 23 Google Scholar.
164 Even Shore and his fellow seceder Baptist Noel had criticised the amended bill for requiring seceders to suffer deposition from the Christian ministry to which they had been called: Record, 23 Apr. 1849; English Churchman, 1849, 294.
165 See Whitehead, Benjamin, Statutes relating to church and clergy, London 1894, 187–9Google Scholar.
166 Blunt, John Henry, The book of church law, London 1921, 213–14Google Scholar.
167 See Hook, Walter Farquhar, Letter to the bishop of Ripon, on the state of parties in the Church of England, London 1841 Google Scholar; Maurice, F. D., Reasons for not joining a parly in the Church, London 1841 Google ScholarPubMed.
168 Purcell, , Life of Cardinal Manning, ii. 692nGoogle Scholar.
169 Nonconformist, 1849, 299.
170 Hansard, 3rd ser. ciii. 699.