Trans. & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 132 (2014), 201–215

Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question

By WILLIAM EVANS

In July 1848 a House of Commons select committee (and in July 1851 the full House) heard allegations that , of Gloucester and Bristol, had acted improperly in relation to the Horfield manor estate, which was part of his bishopric’s ecclesiastical property.1 Among other things Monk was accused of acting so as to improve the financial position of himself and his family, and to the detriment of the and of a local landowner who was also the perpetual curate of Horfield. The purpose of this paper is to identify the allegations against Monk; to sketch the local background to the dispute and its national context; to assess whether the allegations, and Monk’s counter-allegations, were justified; and to note how the matter was resolved and what its local consequences were, not just for Monk and his successors and for his church, but also for the wider Bristol community.

The Horfield Manor Estate Of ancient origin, the manor of Horfield was part of the endowment of St Augustine’s abbey,2 and then of the Bristol diocese.3 It extended over 1,200 acres north of the city of Bristol, from Westbury-on-Trym (which then included Redland) in the west and south to Stapleton and in the east, covering not only much of modern Horfield, but reaching north into .4 By the early 19th century parts had been sold off, but the rest of it produced income for the bishopric, not from the rents its manorial tenants paid, but that from the lessee of the manor to

1. Principal printed sources are: (1) J.H. Monk, Horfield Manor: a letter to each of the rural deans in the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol, by the bishop, 30 November 1848 [hereafter Monk’s Letter], the appendix to which reproduces minutes of the select committee [hereafter Select Com. Mins.]; (2) a letter by Revd Henry Richards to Monk dated 30 Jan. 1849 [hereafter Richards’s Letter]; (3) a selection, prefaced by an introduction by Monk dated 12 July 1851, by Monk of documents relating to Horfield [hereafter Monk’s Documents] (which is not identical with the HC Return listed as (5) below); (4) a response dated 1852 by Monk to a speech by Edward Horsman MP on 17 July 1751 [hereafter Monk’s Response]; (5) Bishopric of Gloucester and Bristol, Horfield: Return to an Address of the House of Commons dated 31 July 1851, ordered to be printed by the House of Commons 24 May 1852 [hereafter HC Return]; and (6) a letter dated 9 March 1852 by Monk to Sir William Page Wood MP [hereafter Monk to Page Wood]. Octavo copies of documents (1) to (4) and (6) are bound together in Bristol Reference Library [BRL] as B23206– B23210, but with B23209 inserted between the introduction to B23208 and the latter’s appendices. Several of the documents are themselves appendices to other documents, so there is much duplication. Some variations between earlier (foolscap) and the bound versions suggest some editing. The bound volume was drawn on by D. Wright and J. Hyde, Bishopston – The Early Years (Bishopston, Horfield and Down Local Hist. Soc. 5, 2010), 14–24. 2. D. Walker (ed.), The Cartulary of St Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol (Glos. Rec. Series 10, 1988), Docs. 7, 17, 73, 81, 119, 158, 396–401, and Add. Doc. 15. 3. J.H. Bettey (ed.), Records of Bristol Cathedral (Bristol Rec. Soc. 59, 2007), 13–15 and sources there cited. 4. The extent of the estate is shown in an undated plan: Bristol Record Office [BRO], 31965 [STG]/9. 202 WILLIAM EVANS whom it had been farmed out. The rent thus payable to the bishop was low, but the lease was for the longest of three lives, and from time to time the tenant would pay a fine or premium in consideration of the bishop agreeing to add a new or replacement life so as to extend the potential term of the lease. In 1817 Bishop Mansel leased the estate to a George Lempriere for the lives of three people: Dr John Shadwell, who practised medicine in Southampton, then aged 54; his son John Augustus Shadwell, then a captain in the 26th regiment of native infantry of the East India Company, aged 22; and Dr Shadwell’s brother Richard Shadwell, of Bristol, aged 46.5 Though Monk claimed6 to have been the first to realise that the Horfield manor estate had what a later age would call ‘development potential’, in fact it was Lempriere who first floated the idea. In 1822 he drafted an ‘outline of an Act of Parliament for improving Horfield’. This would have empowered the lessee of the Horfield manor estate and the bishop to grant building leases of 80 years, the bishop to take a third of the rents and Lempriere two thirds, until the combined rents should exceed a certain sum, beyond which the bishop should receive an additional rent of so much per acre for land, and a percentage of the rent for every new house. The houses, it was implied, would be up-market, because they were not to be within 50 feet of each other, their grounds were not to exceed one acre, and at least half an acre was to be allotted to each house as a pleasure ground or gardens. No manufacturing or noxious business was to be allowed. Once an initial 80-year lease had expired, the bishop would have power to grant a further lease of 40 years.7 It can be inferred from Lempriere’s proposal that he and, no doubt, others recognized that the Horfield manor estate had potential development value; that anyone contemplating erecting a house would not be willing to take a lease limited to lives, the duration of which would be uncertain in case the lease might terminate before the builders had recouped their outlay; that any purchaser, builder or funder would therefore require either the freehold or a long fixed term of years; that that would not be possible unless the bishop, the lessee and the copyholders were to co-operate; that not all concerned would necessarily co-operate; that an Act of Parliament would therefore be necessary to impose a solution; and that the potential for residential development was lucrative enough to justify the expense of private legislation and buying out copyholders. Nothing came of Lempriere’s proposal, but it will have alerted Bishop Mansel (if he was not already aware) to how valuable the Horfield manor estate was, and that awareness will have passed to successor . As Monk put it later in 1848, ‘the double uncertainty of a dependence on leasehold lives and copyhold lives proved an obstacle to the erection of villas and other residences, for which the parish, being situate on rising ground contiguous to the city of Bristol, seemed well adapted’.8

Henry Richards By 1847, when the dispute about Horfield manor estate reached Parliament, several relevant events had occurred. In the 1820s Dr Shadwell, the first life under the lease of the manor estate, also acquired the right of presentation to the living of Holy Trinity Horfield, the . One Henry Richards, who also held some 136 acres of the Horfield manor estate as copyholder,9 acquired the right of presentation from Dr Shadwell and in 1828, when the antiquarian and historian of Bristol Samuel Seyer10 resigned the living, Richards presented himself to it as

5. HC Return, 105–6. 6. Monk’s Documents, vi. 7. BRO, EP/E/11/5. 8. Monk’s Letter, 3. 9. Valuers’ certificate, inHC Return, 203. 10. For Seyer, see I. Gray, Antiquaries of Gloucestershire and Bristol (BGAS Rec. Section 12, 1981), 74; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [ODNB]. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 203 perpetual curate.11 Richards also had a living at Llansoy near Usk, but it was of low value.12 He had been presented to it in 1836 by the duke of Beaufort and held the living until 1849. The church at Llansoy was heavily restored by the subsequent incumbent in 1858; there is no record or other trace of Richards having spent money on improving or otherwise altering that church or its parsonage house, or the local school.13 Of the lives that set the duration of the lease of Horfield manor that Bishop Mansel had granted to George Lempriere, two had died about the time of the 1831 Bristol riots, leaving only Dr Shadwell, who had himself become the tenant under the lease, perhaps by assignment from Lempriere.14 Both Bishop Gray and his successor Bishop Allen had offered to grant a fresh lease for the term of the surviving life and two new ones, but neither had been able to reach satisfactory terms with the tenant.15 Shadwell’s health fluctuated – he had dropsy – but every time he seemed near death, he recovered. For reasons explained below, in June 1847 an Order in Council directed that when the Bristol see should next become vacant, the bishop’s interest in the Horfield manor estate should vest in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.16 So by July 1848 the legal position was that Monk was freeholder of the estate in right of his bishopric; when Monk ceased to be bishop that freehold would be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for non-Bristol purposes; Horfield manor estate was leased by the bishop to Dr Shadwell for three lives of which only one, Shadwell himself, then in his eighties and poorly, was surviving; Henry Richards, the perpetual curate of Horfield, was a copyhold tenant of a large part of the manor; and when Richards ceased to be incumbent, the right of presentation to that living would transfer to the bishop. Richards had two intermediate objectives. One was to obtain ownership of the Horfield manor estate, so that he could merge his copyhold interests in the freehold and be able to give purchasers from him a clear freehold title;17 alternatively, to manoeuvre Monk into granting Richards an overriding head lease of the estate, and then to remove Dr Shadwell’s interest by buying him out.18 At the same time Richards wanted the bishop to augment the Horfield living (it was one of the poorer ones, worth £80 a year,19 and Monk intended to augment it at some time in the future). Monk alleged that Richards planned then to resign it and sell the right of presentation

11. F. Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea: an account of Horfield from the earliest times to 1900(Portsmouth, 1906), 59, 105, 121; BRO, EP/E/11/8. But according to correspondence from Richards to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 29 May 1848, in HC Return, 129, Richards had been presented to the living by Dr Shadwell. Richards himself was not clear as to whether he purchased the living or received it as a gift: Richards’s Letter, 14. 12. Crockford’s Clerical Directory. Richards claimed it was worth only £60–70 a year. 13. A.M. Burton, ‘With the Lord’s Assistance’: a brief history of the parish and church of Llansoy (Llansoy, 1997), 1, 6, 7. 14. The transmission of the lease is not clear. One secondary source is Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea. Bingham was rector of Horfield 1878–99. He said (p. 12) that he had drawn on notes made from 1814 onwards by Samuel Seyer, incumbent of Horfield 1813–25, for the benefit of whoever his successor might be. Bingham, presumably relying on Seyer, said that the manor had been leased by the bishop to one George Lempriere in 1817, but that a Dr John Shadwell renewed the lease, so presumably Shadwell was Lempriere’s assignee. Many of the bishopric records were destroyed in the 1831 riots. 15. H. Richards in Select Com. Mins., min. 2651; quoted in Monk’s Letter, 86. 16. Order in Council, 17 June 1847, in HC Return, 10–12. 17. Copyhold tenants were not empowered to demand to purchase the freehold until the Copyhold Act 1852. 18. Monk’s Letter, 29. 19. Richards’s Letter, 10, 14. 204 WILLIAM EVANS to it at a higher price than he had paid for it.20 Whilst Richards would have benefited from such transactions, his ultimate aim appears not to have been personal enrichment, but to enable himself to make further provision for his church and parish and its poor parishioners. By 1847, with Dr Shadwell aged 83 and likely to die sooner rather than later, and with the certainty of his lease terminating on Dr Shadwell’s death, Richards had a strong motive to put pressure on the bishop to come to terms, because once Dr Shadwell’s lease ended, Monk would own the estate outright, subject only to the rights of individual copyholders, and should Monk die or otherwise cease to be bishop, his interest as freeholder would transfer to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on whom Richards would be able to exert little pressure.

Bishop Monk There is no full-length biography of James Henry Monk and no monograph devoted to him.21 He was born in 1784, his father an army officer, his mother a vicar’s daughter. Monk went to school first in Norwich and then to Charterhouse, which had a strong tradition. Monk entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1800, where he excelled in mathematics and classics. Elected a fellow of Trinity in 1805, Monk became an assistant tutor in 1807. Only two years later, and at the age of 25, Monk succeeded as regius professor of Greek. The same year he was ordained deacon, and priest a year later. When Mansel, then Master of Trinity as well as , died in 1820, many people expected that Monk would be appointed to succeed him at Trinity, but the mastership went to Christopher Wordsworth, brother of the poet William.22 In 1822 Monk was appointed and was awarded the degree of doctor of divinity, as a result of which, under Cambridge statutes, he had to resign his professorship. At Cambridge, Monk was a conscientious tutor. One of his pupils was Thomas Babington Macaulay. Monk wrote editions of Greek tragedies and contributed to what then existed by way of governance of the academic functions of the University, arguing for the introduction of a separate classical tripos. He started examinations for third-year students.23 Later, Monk was to write a life of the great classical scholar . While Monk was at Trinity, the college had to decide how to spend £12,000 which had been donated to it. The choice was between buying more advowsons of livings, to which the college could appoint its fellows, and increasing the value of those livings that were already in the gift of the college. Monk and another fellow persuaded the college to adopt the latter strategy: livings to be augmented were to be in of more than 800 people, and it was to be a condition of the augmentation that the incumbent reside in the parish for a certain number of months a year.24 This episode suggests that as early as 1812 Monk was alive to the problems faced by incumbents whose livings did not produce much income. This concern, consistent throughout Monk’s life, was later a component of the Horfield manor question. In temperament Monk was traditionalist, conservative, old-fashioned and reactionary. He opposed the 1831 and 1832 Reform Bills. He abhorred any suggestion of democracy: in one

20. Monk’s Letter, 28. 21. A succinct summary appears in ODNB. Monk’s portrait, by W. Gush, is in the bishop’s palace, Gloucester. The great west window of Gloucester cathedral, re-glazed by William Wailes of Newcastle in 1859, was donated in memory of Monk. 22. R. Robson, ‘Trinity College in the age of Peel’, in R. Robson (ed.), Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967), 314. 23. Ibid. 324. 24. Ibid. 320, citing G. Pryme, Autobiographical Recollections (Cambridge and London, 1870), 101. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 205 of his charges to his clergy he deplored decision-making by majority vote, and urged the use of drawing lots, for which there was New Testament precedent, if not authority. Somewhat pompous, quick to take offence and over-sensitive about the dignity of his office, Monk was lampooned by Sydney Smith, satirist and canon of Bristol cathedral 1828–45, in the Third Letter to Singleton, which Smith wrote and published in The Ballot. Monk was conscientious and energetic in discharging his pastoral responsibilities: his surviving papers include numerous receipts for horses which he hired all over his dioceses to visit individual members of his clergy.25 Of powerful intellect, he displayed both compassionate patience, as in his handling of Martin Richard Whish, the eccentric vicar of St Mary Redcliffe in Bristol,26 and unsympathetic incisiveness, shown in his dealing with the Bristol chapter over a departure from liturgical practice.27 Monk’s episcopal competence is all the more impressive because, shortly after his appointment as bishop of Bristol, he was struck with an ophthalmic condition which impaired his vision.28 Among the contents of his desk, removed at his death, are bundles of bills from apothecaries and others whom Monk consulted in an unavailing attempt to find cure or alleviation.29 As dean at Peterborough, Monk’s main challenge was to restore the cathedral, which remained devastated following its misuse by soldiers during the Civil War and the Commonwealth. Monk raised over £6,000, to which his own contribution was substantial. It was perhaps on the strength of his fundraising success that in 1830 Monk was appointed a canon of Westminster, which gave him £1,200 a year clear income until his death and explains why he was buried in the abbey. The same year Monk was appointed . Evidently Monk had earned the approval of the ecclesiastical (and perhaps also of the political) hierarchy.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners30 In 1835 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners adopted a policy of not increasing the number of bishoprics, but at the same time they wanted to create new sees at Ripon and Manchester. To help keep the numbers down they recommended the amalgamation of the dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol. Monk was appointed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1836, the year their recommendation took effect, and was appointed bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.31 The Commissioners had two policies that particularly concerned Monk. One was that he should build in or near Bristol a palace to replace the one off College Green that had been destroyed in the 1831 riots.32 To help pay for his new palace at Stapleton, which was to cost more than £20,000, Monk agreed to sell lands at Cam, Northleach and Horfield.33 The last included Horfield Great Farm. Henry Richards offered £6,500, but the Commissioners authorized Monk to sell the farm to one of the existing tenants (another clergyman, but presumably someone Monk trusted not to sell the property on to Richards) for only just above the sum Richards had offered.34 In the event

25. Gloucester Diocesan Records [GDR], in Gloucestershire Archives [GA], A 14/4/12. 26. For Monk and Whish, see W. Evans, Abbots Leigh: A Village History (Abbots Leigh, 2002), 80–2 and sources there cited. 27. Bettey, Records of Bristol Cathedral, 190–1 and sources there cited. 28. Monk’s charge to clergy (1854), 28: GA, J 4.63. 29. GDR, A 14/4/12. 30. For the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and their relation to Queen Anne’s Bounty, see G.A.F. Best, Temporal Pillars: Queen Anne’s Bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Church of (Cambridge, 1964). 31. Order in Council, 5 Oct. 1836, in HC Return, 3–7. 32. Order in Council, 21 Apr. 1840, in HC Return, 7–10. 33. HC Return, 209. 34. Ibid. 81–5. 206 WILLIAM EVANS the cost of the bishop’s new palace, over £23,000 – half for the land, half for the building – was covered. The Commissioners also had a policy that the income of a bishop should be commensurate with the needs of the see, and that endowments should be transferred from the richer dioceses, or those that were over-endowed, to those dioceses less well off, or to endow new dioceses in parts of the country where population growth had rendered the existing ones unsuitable. The Commissioners considered that the right income for Bristol was about £5,000, and that its income was some £500 above that. Monk, however, claimed that up to 1837 Bristol’s normal annual income was only some £4,000 a year. He argued that most of the income came from estates leased for lives; that between 1837 and 1843 a larger number than usual of the lives died; that those deaths led to a larger than normal number of fines being received for lease renewals and the addition of new lives; and that those windfalls pushed the average income up to an exceptional £5,590.35 The Commissioners, however, stuck to their policy, and after initially deciding to reduce Bristol’s income by £1,400 a year, reduced it by only half that sum. The new palace and the equalization reduction (or tax, as Monk called it) were not the only calls on Monk’s finances. In 1831 Bristol nonconformists, led by Joseph Storrs Fry, had established Bristol College, a proprietary institution offering a superior liberal education with commercial subjects as well, which appealed to Bristol’s commercial elite.36 Rattled at Bristol College’s success, Anglican clergy in Bristol clamoured to promote a rival school, and prevailed upon Monk to fund a comparable Anglican establishment.37 In October 1841 Bishop’s College moved into new premises at a cost of £9,750, loaned by Monk, who took a mortgage as security, but not until 1848.38 With Bristol Cathedral Middle School39 and a reviving Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital also competing for pupils, neither Bristol College nor Bishop’s College could survive. The former closed in 1841, but the latter ran at a loss, and Monk never received any interest on his loan. Bishop’s College did not collapse entirely until 1861; the dean and chapter of Bristol refused to make any contribution; and Monk got only half his money back. At the time of the start of the Horfield manor estate dispute, Monk had lent £9,750 without security on a venture that was clearly failing, and he must have envisaged that he would have to write off his loan.40 Another call on Monk’s finances was self-imposed. From the commencement of his bishopric, Monk persisted with his aim, adopted when he was at Cambridge, of augmenting small livings. Every year from 1832 he set aside some of his own money into a private fund, the income of which in due course he intended to apply to that purpose.41 By 1847 that fund had amounted to some £3,445, and Monk had augmented 20 livings.42 The Commissioners persisted in demanding that Bristol sacrifice some sources of income, which Monk resisted. Perhaps by way of compromise so as to achieve their long-term aim but to make a personal concession to Monk, in December 1846 the Commissioners decided to remove Horfield manor estate from the Bristol see the next time the bishopric should become vacant.

35. Monk’s Letter, 5. For the actual figures, see the table inHC Return, 208. 36. Bristol College papers are in BRL, B11644–11651. 37. For Bishop’s College, see J. Latimer, The annals of Bristol in the Nineteenth Century (Bristol, 1877), 141–2, 202. 38. Monk to Page Wood, 8. 39. For Bristol Cathedral Middle School, see W. Evans, ‘Bristol cathedral school and the University of the West of England’, Redland Papers 6 (1998), 15–32. 40. Monk to Page Wood, 8. 41. Ibid. 5. 42. Monk to the Standard newspaper, 22 Apr. 1848, in Monk’s Letter, 13–14. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 207

In February 1847 there were rumours that Monk intended to grant a new lease of the manor for fresh lives. It seems likely that Monk, who denied the rumours, had changed his mind out of pique at the Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ decision, reasoning that he could pre-empt their plan by granting a new lease, the premium for which would be payable to himself. Evidently the Commissioners’ secretary, Charles Knight Murray, was worried that any such action by Monk would thwart, or at any rate delay, implementation of the Commissioners’ policy, but instead of expressing his concern directly to Monk, Murray summoned Monk’s solicitor to London and told him that it would be morally wrong for Monk to grant a new lease of the Horfield manor estate for three fresh lives. Murray appears to have been under a vague impression that there had been a promise on the part of Monk or his predecessor to do that.43 Monk, who claimed he had no such intention, had made no such promise, and was not aware of any such promise by his predecessors, wrote a full exposition of his position to the Commissioners, and remonstrated with them in person.44 The Commissioners said their secretary had been acting of his own accord. One consequence of this spat was that Monk formed the view that Murray was ill-disposed towards Monk, and had been induced to act as he did by someone else (Henry Richards, Monk presumed). At the Commissioners’ meeting the chairman, the earl of Devon, suggested that Monk should sell his reversion to the lease of the estate to the Commissioners, which would give Monk the purchase money at once and would allow the Commissioners to implement their intentions when Dr Shadwell were eventually to expire and the lease with him. Monk then offered to do so,45 and negotiated terms with the Commissioners who, wisely surmising that for Murray to negotiate with Monk might not be productive, appointed Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, of emollient reputation, to handle the prickly Monk. On 18 April 1848 Monk executed a contract by which he bound himself to sell for £11,587 to the Commissioners when requested his reversion to the lease of the estate.46 Monk then wrote to local newspapers saying that he had sold the estate to the Commissioners, except for a part appropriated to eventual augmentation of the living of Horfield (but only when the living came to be held by an incumbent appointed by the bishop, so that Richards himself would not benefit from the augmentation). Monk also told his clergy that he would shortly be in a position to establish a fund from which to augment poor livings. Monk had not communicated any of this to Richards. Monk objected to Richards asking from time to time what Monk was going to do about the Horfield manor estate, partly because Monk thought it was no business of Richards, and that Richards’s enquiries were impertinent. So Richards first heard about the proposed sale from Monk’s letter in the newspaper. Richards immediately protested to the Commissioners, arguing that the purchase money should go not to Monk but to the living of Horfield and its poor parishioners.47 He asked the Commissioners to delay the purchase, on the grounds that he was taking legal advice about the bishop’s legal title to the Horfield tithes, because he thought they ought to be payable to himself, not the bishop. That was hardly a serious proposition, because for more than 300 years the right to the tithes had been vested not in the bishop but in the lay impropriator (then Dr Shadwell), and Richards in his capacity as a private landowner had himself paid them, but completion of the sale was delayed in any event because of queries whether an order of the Privy Council was necessary, and whether the Privy Council had power to make such an order.48 Richards also decided to engage some external assistance.

43. Monk’s Letter, 60 ff.; Select Com. Mins., 1680 ff. 44. Monk to Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 9 Feb. 1847, in Monk’s Letter, 48–52. 45. Monk to Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 21 and 22 Feb. 1848, in HC Return, 109–10. 46. The text of the Agreement is appended to Monk’s Letter, 54–8; HC Return, 120–1. 47. Richards to Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 25 Apr. 1848, in HC Return, 122. 48. HC Return, 132 ff. 208 WILLIAM EVANS

Edward Horsman Edward Horsman (1807–76), later categorized as a moderate (as distinct from radical) liberal, was elected MP for Cockermouth in 1836.49 Horsman did not align himself with any leader or faction, but attacked individuals (such as James Bradshaw), groups (such as bishops) and institutions (such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners) that he saw as representing or benefiting from abuses he wished to expose and eradicate. He excoriated the ecclesiastical policy of the Russell ministry of 1847 as being too favourable to the bishops. In December 1847 he moved a motion of censure on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but it was not carried. In 1848 Horsman got himself appointed to a House of Commons select committee on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In July 1848 Charles Murray, the Commissioners’ secretary, gave evidence.50 Horsman attacked Murray personally as representative of the Commissioners and as a wielder of power,51 but also questioned him about Monk’s transactions regarding the Horfield manor estate. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Murray or Richards or both had fed information to Horsman, who would not otherwise have known anything about Horfield, apart from what he might have read in newspapers. Horsman elicited answers from Murray that the effect of the April 1848 agreement between the Commissioners and Monk was that the purchase money paid to Monk by the Commissioners would go to Monk as his own private property; that if, on the other hand, Monk had allowed the lease to fall in when the last surviving life should die, the estate would have gone not to Monk but to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the general purposes of the episcopal fund;52 that the transaction was not with a view to making up Monk’s income to the level considered necessary;53 that as the Horfield manor estate lease produced little rent, it was considered not necessary to the see, which was considered to have income close to the £5,000 maximum already without it;54 that in June 1847 the Commissioners had obtained an Order in Council that the reversion to the lease be transferred to the Commissioners when the bishopric next became vacant; that when the Commissioners heard that Dr Shadwell was in poor health and that Monk intended to grant a new lease, the Commissioners had got Murray to offer to buy out Monk’s interest, which Monk had himself offered in 1843. Murray also told the committee that Monk had non-episcopal income from other livings of £2–3,000: it is not clear whether that included his income as a canon of Westminster. Horsman asked whether it was part of the deal that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should take over one of Monk’s debts, but Murray said that apart from hearsay and what had appeared in newspapers the Commissioners had no knowledge of that, and that the purchase money would go to Monk as his private property.55 Horsman did not follow up the question, leaving the implication that the money, once in Monk’s hands, would not be used for ecclesiastical purposes. The proceedings of the select committee were reported in national and local newspapers, and Monk was evidently annoyed at the impression that Murray’s evidence, as elicited by Horsman, had given. In November 1848 Monk circulated to his rural deans a defence of his conduct, and to explain why he had not been able to implement the plan, which he had explained to them earlier in the year, to augment poor livings from a fund he intended to set up using the proceeds of sale of the

49. ODNB. 50. Select Com. Mins., mins. 1669 ff.; reproduced in Monk’s Letter, 59–97. 51. Best, Temporal Pillars, 386. 52. Select Com. Mins., min. 1700. 53. Ibid. min. 1730. 54. Ibid. min. 2294. 55. Ibid. mins. 1696–9. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 209 reversion to the lease of his Horfield manor estate.56 He explained that the legal complications (the lease being only for one surviving life and the copyholds being for a variety of lives) made it unlikely that the development potential of the land could be realised. So Monk’s strategy was to sit tight, to refuse to renew the lease with the addition of fresh lives (even though Monk could have demanded a large sum for that), to allow the lease to continue until Dr Shadwell should die, and then to negotiate with the copyholders for the surrender of their interests. Monk explained how matters had been complicated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ decision to take the Horfield manor estate out of the see of Bristol after Monk, and to appropriate it to the Commissioners’ purposes of equalizing the income of bishoprics. Monk represented that as ‘for the prospective taxation of the see.’ Richards had accused Monk of sitting tight, in order to procure a benefit for himself and his family, back in 1838, when Richards gave evidence to a parliamentary committee to the effect that in refusing to extend the lease Monk was ‘running his life’ against that of Dr Shadwell. Though it was true that Monk, the younger man, must have expected to outlive the elderly and dropsical Dr Shadwell, the imputation of an improper motive was not correct, because whether Monk renewed the lease or let it expire during Monk’s lifetime, in either event he would receive a large sum of money, either in fines or premiums for the new lives, or by selling the freehold of the estate free of the expired lease: the moral question was what Monk intended to do with the money, and it is evident that Monk intended to apply it, not, subject to what is said below, for his own purposes, but for church purposes and in particular to improve his fund to augment small livings. But Monk went further. He had formed towards Murray, the Commissioners’ secretary (and, by s. 41 of the Cathedrals’ Act 1840, their treasurer also), an antipathy that will have stemmed partly from Monk identifying Murray as author of the proposal to take Horfield manor out of the Bristol see; partly from Murray having summoned Monk’s solicitor to hear remonstrations about the rumours that Monk intended to grant a new lease of the Horfield manor estate; and partly from an inference that Murray was a secret collaborator with Richards. In his letter to his rural deans Monk insinuated that Murray had abused, out of personal interest, his official position as secretary to the Commissioners. ‘It is said,’ claimed Monk ‘that a family connection between the secretary of the Commission and the principal copyholder of Horfield’ (Richards) took place a short time before the ‘close of 1842 or beginning of 1843’.57 Monk’s allegation was incorrect in detail, but it had a basis of truth.58 Richards’s brother and Murray had married two sisters. Murray had married, in 1838 at Slaugham (Sussex), a Maria Haselwood. Henry Richards was baptized at Farlington near Portsmouth (Hants.) in 1797,59 where his father, Griffith Richards, was rector. He had a brother, Edward Tew Richards, born 1798, who in 1836 married at Farlington a Horatia Haselwood, sister to the Maria Haselwood who married Charles Murray.60 A Horatia Haselwood, baptized in 1806 at St Pancras Old Church, London, had a sister Maria baptized in 1813, and sister Eliza Elizabeth born 1808.61 An Elizabeth Haselwood

56. Monk’s Letter. 57. Ibid. 24. 58. For genealogical information I am grateful to Dr Peter Newley, member of the Council of BGAS and sometime treasurer of Bristol and Avon Fam. Hist. Soc., for his expert investigations. 59. www.familysearch.org (accessed March 2013): marriage 25 Sept. 1838, baptism 11 March 1799. 60. Farlington parish registers: www.farlingtonparish.co.uk/marriages-1837-1933/63.html (accessed March 2013). 61. Baptismal Register of St Pancras Old Church, images viewed on www.ancestry.co.uk (accessed March 2013). 210 WILLIAM EVANS married an Emilius Clayton in 1838, also at Slaugham.62 Though Monk did not mention it, there was also a doctrinal as well as a family link, because Farlington, like Horfield, was a site of sectarian controversy,63 in which Edward Tew Richards, Henry Richards’s brother, rector since 1826 and by 1845 a Tractarian, fought the evangelical local squire over liturgical practices, the rebuilding of the church at Farlington and the construction of a new church at Purbrook (Hants.), which was delayed by the dispute for many years. 64 Because Richards engaged a Haselwood as a curate at Horfield,65 it seems likely that the Haselwoods shared Richards’s Tractarian beliefs. It is not clear why Monk should have thought that the family connection took place so specifically at the turn of 1842–3, rather than in 1838: perhaps Monk inferred that from Murray having spent a couple of days in 1842 with his Haselwood brother-in-law at Horfield.66 In alleging a family connection and, by innuendo, improper professional conduct and abuse of public office on the part of Murray, Monk was not as accurate in his facts as he ought to have been. In his letter to his rural deans Monk also attacked Henry Richards personally. Monk, concerned for the welfare of clergy with poor livings, intended to augment the Horfield living when able to do so, but was not prepared to give Horfield priority over other poor livings, or to be pushed by Richards into according Horfield such priority, especially when Richards was comparatively wealthy and Horfield was not his only source of income. Because throughout Monk insisted that he would augment the Horfield living only after Richards ceased to be the incumbent, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that Monk was also actuated by some personal animosity against Richards. Monk claimed the reason he had not consulted with Richards about, or informed him of, his actions regarding the Horfield manor estate was that Richards had too frequently asked Monk what his intentions were: Monk was clearly affronted at what he perceived as Richards’s breach of social and hierarchical decorum. But Monk’s attitude was probably also prompted by doctrinal differences between the two men: Monk opposed the Tractarians, of whom Henry Richards was a prominent and early local example.67 One of Henry Richards’s daughters, Helena Caroline Richards (1825–52) was ‘the special companion school friend’ of Lucy, daughter of the Tractarian Edward Bouverie Pusey.68 From 1838 Pusey’s two daughters attended a school in Clifton with their mother’s former governess, a Miss Rogers who with her sister ran a school for young ladies at 3 York Crescent, Clifton. At Christmas 1846 Pusey had been invited to preach in Clifton, whereupon ‘two or three of the local Puritans intimated their intention of walking out of the church, with marked and significant stampings, the moment he mounted the pulpit. … Such a ravening wolf from the banks of the Isis could not be allowed to devour the lambs at his pleasure’.69 Richards invited Pusey to preach at Horfield the following Sunday.70 Monk, embattled between nonconformists (both Methodists and Unitarians were numerous and influential in Bristol) and the emerging Tractarian wing of the Established Church, and alarmed at Roman

62. www.familysearch.org (accessed March 2013): marriage 25 Sept. 1838. 63. N. Yates, ‘Ritual conflict at Farlington and Wymering,’Portsmouth Papers 28 (1978), 3–10; N. Yates, ‘The anglican revival in Victorian Portsmouth,’ Portsmouth Papers 37 (1983). 64. Yates, ‘Ritual conflict’. A short obituary of Edward Tew Richards is inThe Times, 22 March 1887, 11. 65. Richards’s Letter, 5. 66. Ibid. 67. For the Tractarian controversies in Bristol, see P.G. Cobb, The Oxford Movement in Nineteenth-Century Bristol (Bristol, 1988); and for Richards’s early leading role, ibid. 7–8. 68. Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea, 59. 69. J. Leech, Rural Rides of the Bristol Churchgoer (Bristol, 1847), II, 221 ff. 70. Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea,79, citing H.P. Liddon, Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey (London, 1894), III, 138. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 211

Catholic assertiveness, warned his clergy against adopting Tractarian practices and beliefs,71 and even went so far as to require the incumbent of St James Horsefair not to permit Pusey to preach there.72 Richards’s connection with the Farlington Tractarians has already been noted. So Monk saw Richards, not only as an opponent of Monk’s plan for the Horfield manor estate, but also a doctrinal enemy. Richards did his best to thwart Monk’s plans right up until Dr Shadwell died.73

How it All Ended In the summer of 1848 the law officers advised that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had had no power to enter into the contract they had made with Monk. In February 1849 Monk’s solicitor suggested to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they should formally release Monk from his contract, but they replied that if the contract was ultra vires and void there was nothing that could be released. In the event a release was executed 10 May 1849,74 presumably ex abundanti cautela. Dr Shadwell died in 1849 at the age of 84. His lease of the Horfield manor estate terminated automatically, and Monk’s freehold in the estate was free of any encumbrances save the interests of the copyholders. Monk’s reaction is not recorded, but he then took the extraordinary step of granting a lease of the Horfield manor estate to his solicitor and secretary, William Holt, a Gloucester lawyer. Neither informed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who found out about the lease only when the Copyhold Commissioners asked about it.75 Given that the law officers had advised that the bishop had no power to dispose of his interest, Monk’s action might seem irrational or even wilfully defiant: if Monk’s intention was to make sure that, should he die before realising his aims, he could rely on Holt to implement them or at least obstruct action by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners inconsistent with what Monk wanted, Monk’s action was barely professional. But if Monk’s intention was to secure the enfranchisement of the estate from copyhold tenure, it was perhaps not unreasonable to put Holt in a position to deal with all the legal formalities; and, perhaps, to save Monk dealing directly with Richards. In July 1851, however, Monk claimed, disingenuously, that he had had only three options: to keep the manor in hand for the remainder of his incumbency, which would not have enabled him to grant purchasers or builders any security of tenure; to lease the manor for 21 years, which would have had the same effect and would have prevented enfranchisement of the copyholds; or to grant a lease so as to give himself control of the asset so that he could ensure it was used for the benefit of the parish and to raise money for his small livings fund. 76 Clearly Monk did not admit as an option to allow the lease to vest in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners once his incumbency ended. In March 1852 Monk claimed that his motive was ‘in order that it [the lease] might pass to my executors, who were bound to make it over to trustees for my diocese, when the doubts suggested by the law officers had been removed’,77 tantamount to an admission that Monk’s aim was to thwart the intentions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On 12 December 1850 Monk and 21 copyhold tenants including Henry Richards, his son and other copyholders surnamed Richards and Shadwell, applied to the Copyhold Commissioners for

71. Monk, letter 5 Nov. 1850 to Bristol Gazette (published 7 Nov.). 72. Cobb, Oxford Movement, 15. 73. Richards to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 29 May 1848, in HC Return, 128–30. 74. HC Return, 171–4. 75. Copyhold Commissioners to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 12 and 23 Dec. 1850, in HC Return, 174–6. 76. Monk’s Documents, xi. 77. Monk to Page Wood, 8. 212 WILLIAM EVANS enfranchisement of the Horfield manor estate. The Copyhold Commissioners took the view that the application and its circumstances were ‘peculiar’, an expression to which Monk took offence, and their decision was delayed while they consulted the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, mainly to clarify what was going on. In July 1851 Monk complained to them, explaining his intentions: ‘to promote, if possible, the improvement of the neighbourhood of Bristol, by liberating the parish of Horfield from copyhold tenure. … My next step will be to divide the land into two: one part consisting of the land eligible for building; the other of the arable and dairy land. I then intend to solicit the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to exchange the first for a lease of a long term of years, on such conditions as they may approve. With regard to the proceeds of the property, my view is to dispose of them upon principles similar to those which I contemplated when the estate was in agitation. It was then intended to augment the living of Horfield with £300 a year from the tithe rentcharge. I now propose to assign to the spiritual care of the parish the whole of the rentcharge. My interest in the lands, and that of the lessee, I wish to transfer to trustees, for the benefit of my diocese; one half for the erection of parsonages on livings under £200 a year, the other half for diocesan purposes.’ Monk proposed that his son be one of the trustees,78 another attempt by the distrustful Monk to make sure his intentions were implemented should he die.79 On 15 October 1851 the Copyhold Commissioners made the enfranchisement award as applied for. As a result, Monk received some 315 acres of freehold land in possession, Richards c.136.80 That left Monk with an estate consisting of a tithe rentcharge, commuted to c.£192 a year; demesne lands of c.160 acres; and the 315 acres awarded him by the Copyhold Commissioners.81 To that Monk added between 20 and 30 acres by purchases. On 9 March 1852 Monk executed two trust deeds, conveying all his interest in the estate to five trustees, one of whom was his son. Half the rentcharge was to be applied to augmenting the Horfield living, but only when its incumbent was one collated by the bishop (so Richards could not benefit); the other half for erecting a new church which housebuilding on the estate would call for.82 Half the rest of the income was for building and maintaining glebe houses in livings of small value in the Bristol archdeaconry and in public patronage; the other half was to pay for curates, for aged and infirm incumbents throughout the two dioceses.83 The advowson of Holy Trinity Horfield was reserved to the bishop.84 The trustees were empowered to grant building leases for not more than 99 years.85 The Ecclesiastical Commissioners must have decided to throw in the towel, because in 1857 Monk’s trustees bought from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the freehold reversion to Monk’s interest in the estate, so they were thereafter able to convey freehold interests to purchasers if they so wished. One effect of the 1852 trust deeds was that Monk received no personal benefit from his disposal of the Horfield manor estate. Monk had evidently decided to bear the loss on his Bishop’s College loan entirely out of his own personal assets.

78. Monk to Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 25 July 1851, in HC Return 187–9. 79. Monk admitted that in a letter he wrote to his trustees: Monk to Page Wood, 8. 80. Ecclesiastical Commissioners to Copyhold Commissioners, 21 Jan. 1851, in HC Return, 183. 81. Monk to Page Wood, 3. 82. Ibid. 4. 83. Ibid. Page Wood, later Lord Hatherley, was MP for Oxford. He was a contemporary of Monk at Trinity, and shared Monk’s doctrinal views. Lord Westbury described him as ‘a bundle of virtues without a redeeming vice’. 84. If, as Bingham claimed, the advowson was owned by Henry Richards (n. 11 above), it is difficult to see what right Monk had to reserve it to himself, unless he had somehow acquired it, which seems unlikely, unless Richards had sold it to him. Or it may have been attached all along to the lease of the manor, which might explain Richards’s assertion that he had been presented to the living by Dr Shadwell. 85. Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea, 120. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 213

Charles Murray did not stay much longer with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He speculated with the Commission’s money, which led them to limit him to £500 working expenses at any one time. 86 Outside the office he speculated in railway shares. In 1844 he had become a director of the South Eastern Railway Company, and had subscribed, using different addresses, for £579,300 worth of shares: (George Hudson, the arch-promoter of railway companies, had subscribed for only £319,835).87 Unable to meet calls on the shares, in February 1849, Murray diverted into his own account a banker’s draft for £2,811, and intercepted the covering letter. Murray did this three more times, misappropriating £6–7,000 of his employers’ money.88 Caught and confronted, Murray confessed, resigned on the spot and made an immediate payment of £600. 89 Murray was not prosecuted. Though qualified as a barrister, he did not practise at the English bar. In 1852 he and his family emigrated to Australia, where Murray practised as a barrister, became a commissioner in lunacy, and acted as a part-time legislative draftsman to the New South Wales assembly from 1856 until he died in 1865.90

Judgments Notwithstanding the esteem in which Monk is held locally for facilitating the development of Horfield, and Richards for championing the cause of a poor parish,91 none of the participants in this distasteful episode, which Trollope might well have scripted, emerges without criticism. Richards evidently did little for his Llansoy parish, but he was not ungenerous to his Horfield flock: he had enlarged Horfield church; in 1837 he had established a schoolroom,92 and maintained it, all at his own expense.93 Whilst acknowledging that, Monk cast Richards as over-concerned to advance his property interests, treating his living as a possession to be bought, improved and sold at a profit like any other piece of landed property. That allegation is only partly true, because just as Monk aimed to raise from his property money that he could apply to church purposes, Richards was similarly motivated, though his purposes were different from Monk’s. It says much that even after the lease ended and the land was enfranchised, Richards retained the incumbency of Horfield until 1864. He was also animated by sectarian animosity towards Monk, and tried to obstruct, by legal means or otherwise, the intentions of both his bishop and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those motives led him to make allegations against Monk which were substantially false. In the absence of evidence, Murray must probably be exonerated of Monk’s allegation that he was actuated by malice towards Monk. In articulating and advancing the Commissioners’ policy to take Horfield out of the Bristol see, Murray was only doing his job as secretary to the Commissioners, acting as instructed. In summoning Monk’s solicitor to be lectured about the morality or otherwise of Monk granting a new lease, he may, as the Commissioners claimed, have been acting on his own initiative, but it was consistent with his professional duty to try to dissuade Monk from thwarting the Commissioners’ intentions. Rather, he seems to have been manipulated by Richards. As Monk surmised, it is difficult to resist the inference that Murray colluded with

86. Monk to Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 5 Feb. 1851, in HC Return, 179. 87. List of subscribers to railway companies promoted 1845, Parliamentary Papers 1845, XL, 97. 88. Monk’s Response, 4. 89. Parliamentary Papers 1850, XLVII, 97–100. 90. Best, Temporal Pillars, 387–93. 91. Wright and Hyde, Bishopston, 20–3. 92. Bingham, Horfield Miscellanea, 105; Richards to Murray, 29 May 1848, in HC Return, 129. 93. Select Com. Mins., mins. 2717–18; in Monk’s Letter, 94; and HC Return, 128–9. Monk himself acknowledged what Richards had done for the parish: Monk’s Letter, 34. 214 WILLIAM EVANS

Richards, supplying information to Horsman which enabled Horsman to ask questions so as to elicit answers which put Monk in a bad light. Murray’s relationship to Richards by marriages may well have been not so much a motive as a lever. It is not known whether Murray himself was a Tractarian; or whether he had any connection with Francis Murray, rector of Chiselhurst, an early member of the Society of the Holy Cross, in which Pusey and other Anglo-Catholics were involved.94 Monk was correct in protesting that some of Murray’s evidence to the Commons select committee was inaccurate, but wrong in claiming that many of Murray’s answers were misleading or false. Horsman, having extracted from Murray in the select committee in 1848 evidence he could use to discredit Monk and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, turned to other targets. On 17 July 1851 he returned to the attack on Monk, making a speech containing specific allegations which Monk attempted to refute, and persuaded the House of Commons to call for copies of all documents relating to the property of the Bristol see, including those relating to Horfield: about the bishop’s income, the cost of his new palace, how it was paid for and details of sales of property. This was collected and printed by the House of Commons in May 1852, but Horsman was not able to pursue his enquiries further even had he wished to, because he was defeated in the 1852 general election. Returned unopposed for Stroud in 1853, Horsman does not seem to have taken up the cause again, or to have concerned himself any more with local ecclesiastical matters. After serving as Chief Secretary for Ireland 1855–7, he withdrew into discontented independence and became one of the isolated liberal Adullamites.95 Monk comes out of the episode vindicated (in the sense that in the event he did not himself benefit financially from his dealings with the Horfield manor estate lease), but not unscathed. His motive regarding Horfield, to use it to fund the augmentation of poor livings, was consistent with his conviction, formed when he was at Cambridge, that poor livings ought to be augmented. His actions throughout, particularly his establishment of an augmentation fund out of his own moneys, were consistent with that, and that is what he achieved in the end. But he did himself no favours by not explaining his policy at the outset, and by not making public the fact that he was building up a fund for that purpose. That allowed Richards to claim, and Horsman to insinuate, that Monk was trying to line his own pocket at the church’s and Richards’s expense. In what a later age would call ‘public relations’, Monk, for all his intellectual prowess, was deficient, a criticism made at the time by at least one local newspaper.96 In particular, having expended and lost a large sum of his own money for the purpose of advancing his church’s sectarian interests in the Bishop’s College adventure, it was not unreasonable of him to seek to reimburse his loss out of part of the proceeds of the sale of the Horfield manor estate; but he never explained until after the event that that was what he wanted part of the money for, though Horsman guessed as much, and Murray evidently knew (presumably from Richards) about Monk’s financial loss, whilst denying that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had any official knowledge. In the event Monk did not appropriate any of the Horfield moneys for that purpose, bearing himself the whole loss not secured by his mortgage, but he never explained any of that until his unpublished letter to his rural deans, so it is understandable that later generations, accepting at face value the insinuations of Richards and Horsman, should have harboured suspicions that Monk’s conduct was self-serving. Monk’s reaction to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ decision to remove Horfield from the Bristol see smacks of pique and pettiness. In that episode he behaved deviously, as he did in not telling the

94. J. Embry, The Catholic Movement and the Society of the Holy Cross (London, 1931), 1–21. 95. The expression was applied by to those liberals who opposed the Reform Bill of 1866. The biblical reference is to 1 Samuel 22.1. 96. Bristol Mercury, 24 Jan. 1852. Bishop Monk and the Horfield Question 215

Commissioners that he had granted a lease to Holt, disingenuously claiming that it would have been improper for him to have done so, without at the time explaining why, and giving specious reasons when he did so. It was not true that leasing the manor to his secretary was the only option open to him: rather, it was an attempt to ensure that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not be able to divert the money to their purposes rather than Monk’s. In the context of the Tractarian dispute, and in the poisonous atmosphere of sectarian antagonism in Bristol at the time, Monk’s behaviour was perhaps understandable, but seems to have been informed more by his personal determination to achieve his aims than by a wider view of Christian charity. Monk’s attack on Murray was largely misconceived. His strictures on Richards were largely justified, except that Richards held only one other living, not several, and it was a poor one, but Monk’s treatment of him lacked human sensitivity and seems to have been tainted by sectarian animosity. Only the Ecclesiastical Commissioners emerge from the episode with any credit. Taking a nationwide view of the Church’s needs, they adopted a sensible policy, and tried to implement it. Both Richards and Monk tried to thwart the Commissioners, not for their personal gain, but in order to generate funds for their own more narrowly-defined ecclesiastical purposes: Monk, to establish his trust to augment local small livings, and Richards, to increase the wealth of his parish and its church buildings, in an ecclesiological way. The trust Monk established continues to this day.97 Achievement of Monk’s aim to free up the land for development is evidenced by the extent of the built-up area of the modern Horfield, and is reflected in place- and street-names, such as Bishopston, Bishop Manor Road, Bishop Road, Monk Road, Monks Park school, Manor Farm boys’ club, and that club’s sporting offshoots, some of which later moved elsewhere. Dr Shadwell is similarly commemorated (but not Henry Richards). Names of fields that formed part of the estate – Golden Hill, The Ship, Long Mead, Lock Leaze, Broadway – are recognisable today in the names of streets and localities. How the development of Horfield progressed is another story.98

97. BRO, EP/A/11/9-1 and -2; P.Hor/PCC/7. 98. See Wright and Hyde, Bishopston.