froc. Field Club Archae.nl. Soc. 63, 2008, 76-87 (Hampshire Studies 2008)

THE DIOCESE OF : REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927

By PETER GILLIAT

ABSTRACT in particular was growing very rapidly, as the county became ever more closely linked with Reform of the Church of in the nineteenth through improved road communica- century has usually been explained by the spiritual tions. New industrial development took place revival in the parishes inspired by the Evangelical in and on the south Revival and the Movement, and the institu- bank of the Thames, and new residential tional reforms facilitated by parliamentary legislation. areas in became increasingly popular Hoiuever, Arthur Burns (1999) has recently added with business people who needed convenient a further perspective on nineteenth century church access to London. In Hampshire, reform and identified what he calls a 'diocesan had grown rapidly whilst servicing the needs revival' in the . He describes the of the navy during the French Revolutionary revival and renewal of different diocesan institutions and Napoleonic wars; 's modern and then examines their impact on further church growth lay in the future and reform., such as the demand for new dioceses. This hardly existed. article seeks to draw together evidence for a diocesan The diocese had its origins in the Anglo- revival in the Winchester diocese, especially during Saxon kingdom of and in the Middle Sumner's long episcopate (1827-1869) and Ages it became the richest bishopric in the goes on to explain the way in which the demand for country. It derived its wealth from its extensive new dioceses was met in Winchester: first through the, estates which were concentrated in Hampshire 'loss' of south London and east Surrey in 1877 and but extended into , Surrey and then through the creation of the and Port- Somerset, reflecting the original extent of smouth dioceses in 1927. the see. Its built and extended their castles and palaces from which their lands were administered, including Wolvesey Palace INTRODUCTION in their cathedral city of Winchester, Castle on the Hampshire-Surrey border and Winchester is one of the oldest English in Southwark. Medieval dioceses and at the beginning of the nine- bishops were primarily leading members of the teenth century it was still one of the largest. It government and as close advisers of the king stretched from south London and the Thames their attendance at court took precedence over to the New Forest and the Solent; it covered the diocesan matters which were often delegated , the , Hampshire to others. The medieval bishops of Winches- and Surrey, although a few parishes in Surrey ter were among the most important of royal were in the London or Canterbury dioceses. advisers and included four treasurers and ten The urban areas in the diocese were growing lord chancellors. and the population was increasing. In 1801 After the upheavals of the Reformation the total population of Hampshire and Surrey and the Civil War Bishop Morley (1662-1684) was 484,000 and in 1831 it was 800,000. Surrey worked hard to re-establish the traditional

76 CIL.LIAT: THE : REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927 77 status and dignity of the bishop's office. This century predecessors. From the beginning his was reflected in the building work he carried leadership style promised to be very different. out at Farnham and Wolvesey; in London, In his first charge to the clergy of the diocese he he abandoned Winchester Palace, which had expressed the hope that 'mutual confidence' fallen into disrepair during the Civil War, and would characterise his relations with them and bought a new London house in Chelsea, later 'that they would find in me, not an indifferent to be replaced by a house in St James's Square. and apathetic witness of their spiritual toils, but In the eighteenth century bishops of Win- a fellow-servant and friend'. He was able to refer chester, like other bishops, were essentially to his own experience of the parochial ministry political figures. Their duties in the House as a curate for five years (1816—21) at of Lords kept them in London for much of in northwest Hampshire: 'here I learnt the the year, and poor communications discour- alternations of hope and disappointment, of aged them from travelling round the diocese. joys and fears, with which the ministrations of They seldom intervened in the administration the parochial office are inseparably attended' of the diocese or in the lives of the parochial (Sumner 1876, 170). At the start of his episco- clergy. They ordained new clergy, usually at pate Sumner signalled his intention to provide their homes in London or Farnham, but there- active and visible leadership in the diocese after there was little contact between bishop by being enthroned in person in Winchester and clergy. Cathedral, the first to do so since the Refor- The state of the Winchester diocese during mation. During his 42-year episcopate three the eighteenth century has been the subject developments in particular transformed the of lively debate (Ward 1995; Gibson 2003; diocese: closer episcopal oversight of the clergy, Smith 2004). However, at the beginning of the a strengthened middle management provided nineteenth century Parliament, in the wake by the archdeacons and rural deans, and the of the American and French Revolutions, growth of diocesan societies and organisations. had become increasingly worried about the Before his translation to Winchester Sumner Church of England's ability to perform its role had been briefly where as the church of the nation. In particular, it he had astonished the diocese by requiring a was concerned about the extent and impact of detailed return from ever)' parish before issuing pluralism and non-residence, the provision of his first charge and carrying out a visitation. He Anglican churches in the growing towns and the did the same in Winchester and repeated the increase in dissenting congregations. During process even' four years during his 42 years as the first half of the nineteenth century Parlia- bishop. Like other Victorian reformers Sumner ment required bishops to provide a constant placed considerable importance on statistics and by analysing the returns he could pinpoint stream of information and legislated to remove 7 pluralism and absenteeism, and to redistribute deficiencies and identify improvements. In his church resources on a national scale under first charge, for example, he spoke out against the Ecclesiastical Commission established in non-residence and drew attention to the need 1835. It was against this background of parlia- for more churches; in recommending more mentary reform that the revival and renewal frequent communion he noted, T observe of diocesan institutions in Winchester took by the returns that the communicants in this place during 's long episcopate diocese very rarely exceed one-tenth part of (1827-1869). the congregation' (Sumner 1876, 175). In his 1845 charge he was able to report that since 1829 the congregations showed a numerical increase of about a quarter and communicants REFORM AND REVIVAL 1827-1877 had doubled (Sumner 1876, 298). Among his statistics in his quadrennial charges Sumner Appointed at the age of 37, always included a tally of clergy surviving from Charles Sumner was very unlike his eighteenth 78 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY his first visitation, also noting those deceased relied on , Archdeacon of since the last one; in his last charge in 1867 he Winchester from 1847 to 1860, to implement observed that only twenty-four incumbents were church reform in Southampton. The town was still in post from the time he became bishop 40 undergoing huge expansion with the opening years before. Burns (1999, 34) comments that of the railway to London in 1840 and the con- Sumner's inclusion of this kind of diocesan struction of the docks, the first of which was data in his charges to the clergy set a trend and opened in 1843. Sumner installed Wigram as 'encouraged them to feel part of a collective Rector of St Mary's in 1850, and immediately enterprise'. the parish was divided and the revenues re- Sumner was also active in his pastoral allocated for the benefit of new and existing oversight of the clergy through his frequent churches. Sumner's archdeacons lived up to travels round the diocese. He met them during Burns' description of them as key players in the his quadrennial visitations at different centres, diocesan revival, 'transforming the schemes of and when he visited parishes to consecrate new bishops and the Ecclesiastical Commission into buildings and institute new incumbents. In 1829 concrete achievement' (Burns 1999, 74). he visited the Channel Islands, the first visit by Sumner not only had the help of his two the diocesan bishop for 300 years and repeated archdeacons but in 1829 he revived the ancient every four years. Sumner gave high priority to office of rural dean. They were commissioned confirmation; each year he undertook confir- to visit and inspect their deanery parishes mation tours and during his episcopate the once a year and inform the bishop of any number of centres increased from around 30 vacant benefices; from time to time he called to nearly 140. All such visits provided opportu- them together for a three-day conference at nities for the bishop to become 'a more visible . In 1843 Sumner sanctioned and familiar presence in the parishes' (Burns the restoration of ruridecanal chapters, which 1999, 132). gave clergy new opportunities to participate Sumner did not act alone but worked in the collective life of the diocese. Archdea- closely with the Archdeacons of Winchester con Wilberforce was instrumental in reviving and Surrey. Since medieval times archdeacons them in Surrey and used them as a means of had been regarded as the 'eye of the bishop', getting to know the clergy. They gave clergy whose main responsibility was monitoring the the opportunity to discuss topics of common condition of the parishes through parochial interest; these included issues debated in the visitations. Sumner's archdeacons undertook Convocation of Canterbury after it was revived this duty very thoroughly, and also played a in 1854. In some instances chapters were able vital role in supporting diocesan societies and to take action, as when the Southwark chapter organising schemes for church improvement took responsibility for co-ordinating church and extension. Charles Hoare, Archdeacon extension. The deaneries were essential to of Winchester from 1829 to 1847 and then of Sumner's management of the diocese, and to Surrey from 1847 to 1860 was Sumner's first improve their effectiveness their number was appointment and his longest serving colleague. increased in Surrey from three in 1827 to 13 by He shared Sumner's evangelical convictions as 1869 and in Hampshire from ten to 24. well as his commitment to re-invigorating the Sumner's episcopate also saw the. develop- life of the diocese; he is rightly described as ment of numerous diocesan societies and 'the first modern ' organisations. They usually started as local (Guille, 2003, 20). , Arch- branches of national societies and in later years of Surrey from 1839 to 1845 worked were to become part of the diocesan system of particularly hard in south London. He took the government. Membership included not just lead in sub-dividing parishes in Bermondsey the clergy but also the laity, which provided and Southwark, and raising money to support one of the chief ways of involving them in them. In another part of the diocese Sumner the work of the diocese. Perhaps the most GILLIAT: THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER: REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927 79 important initiative was the establishment of of Lords and as a speaker he had few clerical the Diocesan Board of Education in associa- rivals. Wilberforce transferred to Winchester tion with the National Society for Promoting in his 65th year, conscious that his new diocese the Education of the Poor in the Principles was considerably larger than Oxford and that of the Established Church, which had its first south London presented particular challenges. meeting under Sumner's chairmanship in However at the time of his appointment he December 1838. He gave his full support to made it clear to Prime Minister Gladstone that its work of training teachers, promoting new he did not want the diocese to be divided. He schools and providing inspection; for example, threw himself into the new work with great his provision of Wolvesey for free use as the energy travelling round the diocese by coach, training school for teachers from 1847 to 1862 horseback and rail, and spent much of his saved the Board £100 a year. Another initiative time organizing new parishes and buildings was the formation of a diocesan branch of the in south London. He strengthened diocesan Church Building Society to raise money for middle management by establishing a new new churches; Sumner attended 24 inaugural archdeaconry for the Isle of Wight in 1871. He meetings across the diocese during its first year streamlined the various diocesan societies and in 1837. Later on he promoted a number of organisations by creating two county-wide asso- schemes to provide new churches, schools and ciations which dealt with buildings, education, parsonage nouses in south London. Attend- provision for curates and endowments of small ance at meetings of diocesan societies and benefices. But Wilberforce was bishop for less subscribers became easier with the coming of than four years. He had two heart attacks in the railways after 1840, and helped to create a 1870 and a third in 1871; although he recovered sense of diocesan community. In 1863 Winches- and continued to drive himself ceaselessly ter published its first annual diocesan calendar he increasingly suffered from tiredness and or directory, which also encouraged diocesan depression. In July 1873 he fell from his horse awareness and loyalty with information and and died instantly. news about both parishes and organisations. Sumner and Wilberforce had been dominant Overall, the reforms that took place during personalities within the diocese but their suc- Sumner's episcopate were remarkable. New cessors were more prepared to seek advice from parishes and churches were established and clergy and laity. (1873-1891) built, with the number of benefices increasing succeeded Wilberforce; he had been Bishop of from just over 400 in 1827 to nearly 630 in 1869. Ely since 1864 and had been one of the first Over 100 decaying churches were restored, new bishops to introduce annual diocesan confer- schools were opened and almost every parish ences. Browne saw these as a revival of 'the most had a parsonage and a resident incumbent. But ancient organizations of the church' and at the Sumner realised that these reforms alone were first Winchester Diocesan Conference held at not enough to bring the growing urban masses Farnham in November 1876 argued that synods into the church, and he increasingly realised and conferences of the diocese promoted unity that the population of the diocese was now within the church. They helped to reduce the too large for one bishop. In 1868 he suffered a isolation of the clergy who 'have been too much stroke and resigned in 1869; he died five years like little potentates in their own parishes'; the later in 1874. His former archdeacon, Samuel true principle of unity made 'the diocese and Wilberforce, who had been not the parish the unit of the Church'. He went for the last 24 years, succeeded him. on to argue that it was no longer possible for Wilberforce had been a diocesan reformer in the bishop to act as 'an episcopal autocrat' Oxford as Sumner had been in Winchester, but as he needed 'to look for the advice and co- he had also become a national figure in a way operation of the clergy and laity' (Diocesan that Sumner had never been. He often took Calendar 1877, 93). Browne recognised that a the lead amongst the bishops in the House bishop had to carry people with him and the 80 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY diocesan conference became a major instru- RE-ORGANISATION AND SUB-DIVISION ment for doing this. Two clergy and two laymen 1877-1927 from each deanery attended the first confer- ence, and debates were held on education By the time Browne became bishop in 1873 and on 'how best to bring religious influence Winchester was the largest diocese in the to bear on the working classes'. The following country in respect of size, and the third most year the conference adopted a formal consti- populous after London and Manchester with tution, which established a body of over 300 over 1.5 million inhabitants, 700,000 of whom members with equal representation from both lived in south London. With the growing clergy and laity. The annual conference quickly importance attached to the role of the diocese became an important diocesan institution and Browne quickly recognised that he needed at his last conference in 1890 Browne identified more help. In 1870 the office of suffragan it as a development for which he was particu- bishop had been revived because of the increas- larly grateful. He reflected that T introduced ing demands made on bishops. The position the conference with some difficulty because my had existed in the medieval church, usually as eminent predecessor, Bishop Wilberforce, had a short-term measure to cover the absence or not introduced it and felt considerable doubts illness of a bishop. At the time of the Refor- about it, not as to its constitution but as to its mation the Bishops Act of 1534 permitted the limiting the power of the bishop' (Diocesan appointment of suffragans and 26 towns were Calendar 1891,166). named as suffragan sees, but the practice fell The fifty years since Sumner became bishop into disuse after the sixteenth century. When in 1827 had seen a transformation of the Browne came to Winchester he was keen to diocese. It had developed an effective lead- develop the ministry of suffragan bishops and ership and management structure provided in 1874 nominated John Utterton, Archdeacon by the bishop, archdeacons and rural deans, of Surrey since 1865, as the of supported by a growing number of diocesan Guildford, one of the towns named in the 1534 societies and organisations. The diocesan Act. In addition Browne appointed Francis revival in Winchester had also given clergy McDougall, who had been Bishop in Borneo, as and laity new opportunities to participate an assistant bishop in the diocese with a canonry in the collective life of the diocese, which in the cathedral. These appointments enabled allowed for further development once the Browne to carry out his episcopal ministry diocesan conference had been established in more effectively; in particular they helped with 1876. In addition, by the end of the period confirmations and provided sources of advice the cathedral was expected to play a larger and support. part in the life of the diocese. When a new However, many churchmen regarded Dean was installed in 1872 Wilberforce urged the appointment of suffragan bishops as an the vice-dean to invite as many diocesan expedient; the real solution to the problem clergy as possible, saying that he saw it as an of episcopal workload was the creation of new occasion 'to knit together the Chapter and dioceses. Traditionally English dioceses were Diocese' (Barrett 1993, 258). In 1878 Browne large. At the end of the there undertook a formal visitation and in his were just 17 but five new ones were created at charge to the cathedral shared his vision of the time of the Reformation, which reduced the chapter as an active body gathered round the size of some dioceses but not Winchester. the bishop intent on the advance of the Between 1830 and 1870 various schemes for the Christian faith (Kitchin 1895, 444). In this way creation of new dioceses had been proposed the cathedral was beginning to be seen as a to make adequate provision for the growing focus for the diocese itself, now invigorated as population, but they were slow in coming. Only a result of stronger leadership and improved two new dioceses were created, Ripon and management during the previous 50 years. Manchester, although some diocesan bounda- GILLIAT: THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER: REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927 81 ries were re-drawn; in the southeast the small 150 parishes, Winchester still had over 500 was given responsibility in parishes and over 900 clergy. 1846 for the counties of Hertford and , Initially Browne thought his reduced diocese which provided some relief to the large diocese had become more manageable. He did not of London. However, this never looked like a appoint another suffragan bishop when Bishop permanent arrangement and a new diocese of Utterton of Guildford died suddenly in 1879 as was proposed as early as 1848 to cover he hoped he could cope alone with the help these two counties north of the Thames. Win- of Bishop McDougall. However, after McDou- chester remained largely unaltered, although gall's death in 1886, Browne revived the office churchmen in Surrey were beginning to call for of suffragan bishop with the appointment of a new diocese; in 1865 Sumner had presented George Sumner, as in a petition to the Canterbury Convocation from 1888. Well-known in the diocese as Bishop '335 noblemen, gentlemen and clergy in the Sumner's son and already Archdeacon of county of Surrey' calling for a diocese of their Winchester, he provided much needed assist- own, covering the whole county including ance to Browne and his successor, Anthony south London. Thorold (1891-1895). A second suffragan Nothing came of these proposals, mainly for see of Southampton was created in 1895. The lack of funds. However, in the autumn of 1874 first two Bishops of Southampton did not stay Browne took the initiative when he suggested long enough to leave their mark but the third, selling Winchester House in St James's (1898-1903), proved to be a Square, worth at least £70,000, to endow a new particularly energetic and effective colleague bishopric for south London. He gained the for Bishop (1895-1903). support of both Tait and Disraeli's However, he died unexpectedly in post, aged Home Secretary, Richard Cross, and a scheme only 51, shortly before Davidson was appointed was quickly hammered out. This would create . The appointment a new St Albans diocese north of the Thames of suffragan bishops now became a permanent with an initial endowment provided from arrangement, although income for the posts the sale of Winchester House, and Rochester was not assured; usually it came from holding would take over the parliamentary divisions of another post such as an incumbency, residen- East and Mid Surrey from Winchester; in this tial canonry or more usually an archdeaconry, way Rochester would be responsible for south with the diocesan bishop also making a contri- London but would also take in the rural part bution from his own income. However, bishops of east Surrey, leaving Winchester with west increasingly relied on them and in 1909 Bishop Surrey and Hampshire. The bill to implement Ryle (1903-11) claimed that 'both in the north these changes was passed in June 1875 with and in the south the Suffragan Bishop is my very little opposition and the new arrange- aller ego' (Fitzgerald 1928, 209). ments came into effect in 1877. Speaking in From 1890 onwards the Diocesan Confer- the Browne said that although ence played an increasingly significant role his original wish had been for a bishopric in diocesan affairs. In that year it agreed to of south London, the scheme 'was the best establish a monthly diocesan magazine, which that could be devised'. He acknowledged the was published for the first time as the Winchester argument against dividing Surrey between two Chronicle in January 1893. In 1890 the confer- different dioceses but pointed out that Surrey ence also approved proposals to extend the legal was already divided among different dioceses. powers of the two Diocesan Societies, originally He claimed that the scheme would 'constitute set up by Wilberforce to raise money for various manageable but still large dioceses' (Par- aspects of diocesan work. At Bishop Thorold's liamentary Debates (Lords) 1875, vol 3, col first conference in 1892 a far-reaching re- 1886). Although the re-organisation of the organisation was agreed. The Hampshire and diocese in 1877 resulted in the loss of nearly West Surrey Diocesan Societies were combined 82 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY into the Winchester Diocesan Society for Firth, rector of Houghton, near Stockbridge, Promoting Church Work, renamed the Bishop started a campaign for division and in 1904 his of Winchester's Fund in 1903. Diocesan finance local rural deanery of resolved that 'the still depended on voluntary collections and division of the unwieldy diocese of Winchester subscriptions and it was not until 1913 that is absolutely necessary to its pastoral efficiency funding was put on a more secure basis when and spiritual welfare' (Firth, HRO 44M68/ the Diocesan Conference established the Win- Fl/5). He became Secretary of the Additional chester Diocesan Fund; this had the declared Bishoprics Committee, which ran an effective purpose of promoting 'the greater efficiency national campaign for new dioceses. Following of church work by bringing together under the creation of the St Albans Diocese in 1877 central diocesan control various diocesan other new dioceses had been established; for organisations' (Diocesan Calendar 1916, 170). example, the Diocese of Southwark was created The Fund was subject to the resolutions of the out of the division of the Rochester Diocese in Diocesan Conference and was managed by a 1905. But Firth and the Committee argued that council, a Board of Finance and fifteen com- more were needed if the Church of England mittees ranging from education and mission to was to maintain a presence throughout the temperance work and the Diocesan Deaconess country. House. The Board of Finance was required to However, Ryle showed litde enthusiasm for prepare a budget each year, with the sum to be change and when addressing the Diocesan raised divided among the rural deaneries; the Conference in 1909 maintained that the organ- constitution noted that 'the sum asked for is to isation of the diocese, although not ideal, was be regarded not in the nature of a debt which 'for the present the most practical and the most is demanded, but of a voluntary offering which efficient in the supervision of the diocese. The is expected' (Diocesan Calendar 1916, 175). In separation of our six Surrey rural deaneries this way a coherent system of finance was put would not really help and there was no sound in place with the Diocesan Conference taking statesmanlike reason for the sub-division of overall responsibility for funding aspects of Hampshire' (Diocesan Calendar 1910, 156). diocesan work. His successor, (1911-23) In spite of the hard work of Bishop Ryle realised that the issue would have to be faced and his two suffragans the task of promoting a not least because of the uncertain funding for diocesan identity remained a difficult one. The his two suffragan bishops. But he had no strong population of the diocese continued to rise. It feelings in favour of division and in a letter to was 1,124,500 in 1901, an increase of nearly 25% his son shortly after accepting the Winches- since 1881; Portsmouth's population had grown ter bishopric admitted T don't think I am the from 72,000 in 1851 to 190,000, Southampton man to destroy Farnham or divide the diocese' from 14,000 in 1829 to 78,000 and Bourne- (Stephenson 1936, 263). However, one leading mouth from less than 1,000 in 1851 to 50,000. layman in the diocese, Lord , was quite As Ryle's chaplain and biographer pointed clear that significant change was required in out the diocese stretched from East Molesey, the management of the diocese. A son-in-law of opposite Hampton Court, to Bournemouth the former Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, and with about 570 parishes and 1,000 clergy. 'It was himself a former First Lord of the Admiralty not homogeneous with no close bonds of unity and Governor-General of South Africa, he was between its component parts; for example, it part of a family network that dominated the lay was not easy to persuade people living in west leadership of the Church of England during Surrey, whose interests were mainly in London, the first half of the 20th century. He chaired of their responsibilities to the diocese' (Fitzger- the ' Committee on Church-State ald 1928, 206). It was therefore not surprising relations from 1913 to 1917 that led to the that demands for a division of the diocese were 1919 Enabling Act; this established the Church increasingly made. As early as 1903 Assembly, a new national body with legislative GILLIAT: THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER: REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927 83

powers delegated by Parliament. It was Lord now become a firm supporter of division. He Selborne, with the assistance of his son Lord said that he was less concerned 'by arguments Wolmer and Canon Firth, who patiently steered of episcopal supervision' but more by his the diocese towards sub-division over a period 'intense desire to see the corporate life and fel- of twelve years. lowship of the Church everywhere quickened'. In October 1912 Selborne proposed a He argued that 'our present body corporate motion at the Diocesan Conference to set up a is, both by its size and the unhappy difficulties committee to look at the current administration and awkwardness of its transport system, too of the diocese and the possibility of division. He big for real effectiveness of common counsel argued that the diocesan bishop should know and administration and united life' (Stephen- all his clergy and be known at least by sight in son 1936, 263). Selborne's motion was passed the whole diocese; a suffragan could 'not be the without dissent and a new committee under the Bishop any more than one of the most respected chairmanship of the bishop was appointed. members of our Royal Family could take the The committee divided into four groups: place of the King or Queen in the eyes of the the Hampshire sub-committee chaired by Lord people' (Diocesan Chronicle Nov.1912). His Wolmer, the Surrey sub-committee chaired motion was approved and the bishop appointed by the Bishop of Guildford, and two further a committee under the chairmanship of Lord groups on finance and the future of Farnham Tennyson. The committee's report, issued in Castle. The Hampshire group decided that the March 1914, recommended 'that the principle county with over a million inhabitants was now should be accepted that the present Diocese of too large for one diocese and recommended Winchester be reduced in size'. The authors the creation of a Portsmouth diocese to include noted that 'local feeling in England to a large the Isle of Wight and the rural deaneries of Port- extent attaches itself to counties, except in the smouth, Alverstoke, Havant, Petersfield and case of large cities, which have a local life of part of Bishops Waltham. If a second Hampshire their own', and were therefore attracted to the diocese were to be created, then one based on idea of county bishoprics. The report also rec- Portsmouth was arguably the obvious choice, ommended that the diocese should co-operate although Southampton or Bournemouth had with the dioceses of Southwark and Canterbury also been suggested. Portsmouth was the largest to form a new Surrey diocese (HRO 44M68/ town in the south of England and had expe- Fl/5). The proposals received little support rienced a revival of Anglican fortunes during from the other dioceses, which were reluctant the second part of the nineteenth century. to give up their parishes, and the outbreak of The Surrey group noted that the eastern part the First World War in August 1914 postponed of the county outside London belonged either any further discussion. to the Southwark Diocese (the part ceded by Winchester to Rochester in 1877) or the Can- The Diocesan Conference returned to terbury Diocese (the Croydon archdeaconry), the issue in October 1920. This time Lord which made it impossible to take advantage Selborne proposed a resolution, seconded by of the county spirit. Although some people Canon Firth, calling for division into two or were in favour of a stand-alone west Surrey more dioceses and establishing a committee to diocese it was generally agreed that that a new draw up a detailed scheme. He reiterated his diocese would be greatly strengthened by the argument of eight years before that it would addition of Hampshire parishes; as the Surrey- be 'impossible to get the full strength and Hampshire border cut through the military advantage of the episcopal system ... unless area of Aldershot it was proposed to add the six the size of the diocese was such that the bishop parishes in Aldershot, Farnborough, Ash and could know intimately all his clergy, and also be Cove to the new diocese (HRO 44M68/F1/5). at least fairly well known in even' village of the diocese' (Diocesan Chronicle Nov. 1920). But These proposals to divide the diocese unlike eight years before Bishop Talbot had into three with two new dioceses centred on 84 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Guildford and Portsmouth were considered by friends, who petitioned against the division of the Diocesan Conference in May 1921. Lord Hampshire at the last moment; he complained Wolmer in proposing the scheme argued that that 'hardly any of them had ever taken part the new dioceses covered 'not merely an area in the government of the diocese, nor consid- that could be adequately and effectively super- ered the problem of diocesan administration'. vised by one Bishop but an area in which it was Powerful support for the proposals came from possible for the Diocesan Conference to play a Bishop Talbot who said that he had come to real part'. The main opposition to the proposal realise that 'the Diocese of Winchester as an came from some Isle of Wight representatives organic body was too large and unwieldy to who argued that they had no money to pay the have a real organic life' (Diocesan Chronicle, debts of Portsmouth and that they had always Aug. 1923). The Assembly rejected Dr Ryle's looked to Winchester as their cathedral and motion to delay by 239 votes to 125, and then count)' town. However, the Conference with went on to approve the Measure. only five dissentients voted in favour, with At this point Talbot, now aged 80, retired. the recommendation that the scheme should The popular and energetic Bishop of Peter- be discussed in rural deaneries and parishes borough, , succeeded him. (Diocesan Chronicle July 1921). In June 1922 In his letter offering Woods the post Prime the scheme again received overwhelming Minster Baldwin pointed out that the division support from the Conference when it voted in of the diocese could not take effect until a favour of asking the Church Assembly to frame a very considerable sum of money had been Measure to implement the proposals; an Isle of raised. In addition, it still had to be approved Wight amendment to refer the whole question by Parliament. The Winchester Measure came back to the committee was heavily defeated. before the Commons at the end of May 1924 The debate now moved to - to and was proposed by Lord Wolmer, MP for the Church Assembly and to Parliament. A Aldershot. General Seely, MP for the Isle of Measure for dividing Winchester and creating Wight, moved an amendment requesting the dioceses of Guildford and Portsmouth deferral until 'the poorer clergy of the diocese was considered by the Church Assembly at its have received an adequate stipend and until spring and summer sessions of 1923. It defined the wishes of the inhabitants of the diocese the area of the two new dioceses and made the have been more clearly ascertained'. After a foundation of the new bishoprics dependent full debate the motion approving the Measure on the provision of adequate funds for their was passed by 97 votes to 43 (Parliamentary endowment. Two main arguments emerged Debates (Commons), vol 174, col 368-82)'. against the Measure. First, Dr Headlam, Bishop It came before the Lords in July 1924. The of Gloucester argued for the retention of county new Bishop of Winchester argued that the bishoprics and therefore saw merit in adding division of the diocese would greatly increase west Surrey to the Diocese of South wark to create the Church's spiritual efficiency and that a Surrey bishopric, and in keeping Hampshire rejection of the Measure, which had behind it as a single diocese. Secondly, Dr Ryle, the the authority of the Diocesan Conference and former Bishop of Winchester and now Dean of the Church Assembly, was a step too extreme Westminster, argued that although Winchester to contemplate. However, Lord Northbrook, needed dividing this was the wrong scheme and the long serving Chairman of Hampshire it would be better to wait and plan for a more County Council, introduced an amendment comprehensive re-organisation across southern not to proceed. He referred to the widespread England. Lord Selborne dealt courteously and objections to the scheme particularly from the patiently with both arguments when introduc- Isle of Wight, and to the undesirability of dis- ing the Measure in the final debate in July. But membering an ancient and historic diocese, he was clearly exasperated with some leading arguments strongly refuted by Lord Selborne. Hampshire laymen, many of them his personal Dr Henson, , also spoke per- GILLIAT: THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER: REFORM AND RE-ORGANMSATION 1827-1927 85 suasively against the Measure, arguing for the to 600,000, and the number of parishes reduced retention of large historic dioceses like Win- from 586 to 315. The loss of west Surrey, the chester and claiming 'that the only thing for Aldershot-Farnborough area of northeast which a bishop needs assistance is confirma- Hampshire, the greater Portsmouth area and tions', which could be provided by suffragans. the Isle of Weight meant that the diocese was At this point Archbishop Davidson, fearing more compact and less unwieldy; taking South- defeat, successfully moved the adjournment ampton as its geographical centre, it was only (Parliamentary Debates (Lords), vol LVIII, 30 miles from both Bournemouth and Basing- col 111-49). When the debate was resumed stoke. Wolvesey became the bishop's residence, a fortnight later the Archbishop patiently situated very close to the cathedral and rehearsed the case for approving the scheme, centrally placed in the newly defined diocese. and when the vote was finally taken the The smaller diocese also meant that a much Measure was carried by 70 votes to 60. larger proportion of clergy and laity could be The division of the diocese into three could represented in the newly constituted Diocesan now take place, but the money to fund the Conference, a point that had often been made re-organisation, estimated at £110,000, had by the supporters of the sub-division. Such to be found. At the Diocesan Conference in benefits were claimed not just for the Winches- November 1924, Woods successfully moved ter scheme but also for other re-organisation a resolution calling on 'all churchmen in the schemes within the Church of England; 19 diocese, including those who have hitherto new dioceses had been added to the existing been opposed to the scheme, to unite in 24 between 1877 and 1927 in the belief that carrying it to completion without delay'; he dioceses of a manageable size were essential asked that the money should be raised in five for the ministry and mission of the church. years (Woods & Macnutt 1933, 214). In notes In 1922 a committee of the Church Assembly for clergy, speakers and PCCs the case for the had recommended that dioceses should have division and the creation of two new dioceses not less than 150 benefices and not more than was clearly argued. It particularly emphasised 250, and no diocese should be so large as to the 'shepherding' role of the bishop and the require more than one suffragan bishop. The need for 'manageable' dioceses, and included committee recommended the creation of 12 testimonies from new dioceses as to the value new dioceses but in the event only five were of division, which 'unanimously bear witness established: Blackburn and Leicester in 1926, to the growth of church life in all directions' and Derby, Guildford and Portsmouth in 1927. (HRO 44M68/F1/5). By December 1925, 1927 was the last year in which the Church £73,000 was raised, which increased to £93,000 of England would create new dioceses at by October 1926. In February 1927 Woods home. Thereafter the expense and upheaval was able to announce that 'our endeavour is of reorganisation militated against further new completed, not in five years but in three. All sees at a time when the Church of England the money needed lor the incomes and the was declining in terms of church attendance, houses of the new bishoprics is forthcoming or social esteem and political influence. The large will be by the end of April' (Woods & Macnutt dioceses that remained, such as neighbouring 1933, 256). On 1st May 1927 the creation of the Oxford, increasingly came to rely on suffragan dioceses of Portsmouth and Guildford became bishops and as the century proceeded more and an accomplished legal fact. more were appointed to the point at which they outnumbered diocesan bishops. This of course was a line of action that Winchester could have taken, but at the time the view that the appoint- CONCLUSION ment of suffragan bishops was little more than an expedient still prevailed; for churchman At a stroke the population of the Winchester like Lord Selborne a diocese could only have Diocese was cut by over a half, from 1,400,000 86 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY one 'Father in God' and this provided the main increased responsibilities, as well as becoming ecclesiastical argument for smaller dioceses. the main advocate of further diocesan division. The nineteenth century diocesan revival Whilst the first division of the diocese took less in Winchester under Sumner, as in other than three years to achieve and was the work dioceses, had seen the growth of what Burns of mainly three men, the Bishop of Winchester, calls 'diocesan consciousness'. It had raised the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Home expectations as to the role of the diocese Secretary, the second was a much longer, more but with an ever-rising population it became democratic and controversial process. Perhaps increasingly difficult for the diocese to meet it is not surprising that the Church of England them, especially in places like south London. has been reluctant to embark on any major Although Sumner recognised that the diocese diocesan re-organisation since then. had become too large for one bishop, Wilber- force was opposed to any division of the diocese, and both bishops disliked the idea ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS of suffragans. It was Bishop Browne who was prepared to give up south London in 1877 and The main stimulus for this article derives from accept the help of suffragan bishops. It was also Arthur Burns' book, The Diocesan Revival in the Bishop Browne who established the Diocesan Church of England 1800-1870. My thanks are Conference, which over the years helped to also due to the staff of the Hampshire Record promote diocesan consciousness and took on Office and the Local Studies Library.

REFERENCES

Primary Sources Bell, G K A 1935 Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Can- terbury, London. Hampshire Record Office [HRO] 44M68/F1/5. Burns, A 1999 The Diocesan Revival in the Church of Diocesan Division: Some Recollections, Canon E H Firth, England 1800-1870, Oxford. August 1924. Fitzgerald, M H 1928 A Memoir of Herttert Edward Ryle, Report of the Committee appointed to consider London. the proposed division of the Diocese of Gibson, W 2003 'A happy fertile soil which bringeth Winchester, March 1914. forth abundantly': the diocese of Win- Report of the Committee on the Division of the chester, 1689-1800, in Gregory, J & Diocese, 1920-21. Chamberlain, J S (eds), The National The Case for the Division of the Diocese of Winches- Church and. Local Perspective: The Church ter and the Creation of the Dioceses of of England and the Regions 1660-1800, Portsmouth and Guildford, 1924. Woodbridge, 99-118. Guille, J 2003 (ed.) A Millennium of Archdeacons, Hansard Parliamentary Debates (Lords) 1875. Winchester. Hansard Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 1924. Hastings, A 1991 A History of English Christianity Hansard Parliamentary Debates (Lords) 1924. 1920-1990, London. Winchester Diocesan Calendar and Clergy List Kitchin, C W 1895 Edward Harold Browne: A Memoir, 1863-1927. London. Winchester Diocesan Chronicle 1893-1927. Knight, F 1998 The Nineteenth Century Church and English Society, Cambridge. Secondary Sources Marsh, P T 1969 The Victorian Church in Decline! 868- 1882, London. Barrett, P 1993 Barcliester: English Cathedral Life in the Meacham, S 1970 Lord Bishop: The Life, of Samuel 19th Century, London. Wilberforce, Cambridge. GILLIAT: THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER: REFORM AND RE-ORGANISATION 1827-1927 87

Smith, M 2004 (ed.) Doing the Duty of the Parish: Ward, W R 1995 (ed.) Parson and Parish in Eighteenth Surveys of the Church in Hampshire 1810, Century Hampshire: Replies to Bishops' Visi- Winchester. tations, Winchester. Simpkinson, C H 1896 The Life and Work of Bishop Winnett, A R 1977 Attempt Great Things: The Diocese of Thorold, London. Guildford 1927-1977, Guildford. Stephenson, G 1936 Edward Stuart Talbot, London. Woods, E S & Macnutt, F B 1933 Theodore, Bishop of Sumner, G H 1876 The Life of Charles Richard Sumner, Winchester, London. London. Yates, N 1983 The Anglican Revival in Portsmouth, Virgin, P 1989 The Church in an Age of Negligence Portsmouth. 1700-1840, Cambridge.

Author. Peter Gilliat, Amberley, Sleepers Hill, Winchester, S022 4NB

© Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society