Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham of Southwell,1876–1884 Midlands: TheFoundingoftheDiocese The VictorianChurchofEnglandinthe midland history © UniversityofBirmingham 2012 2 1 speculation untilin keywords created in1927forthearchdeaconriesofDerbyandNottingham. suffragan wasappointedforDerbyshirein1889,andseparatedioceseswere diocese didnotwork,refl George Ridding,thefi rst bishop,soondiscoveredthatthetwo-county Southwell diocese,andthedebatesaboutlocationofcathedral. creation ofnewdiocesesnationally,thedebatesaboutgeography to theformationofnewdiocese,politicalcontextsurrounding Birmingham wasfoundedonlyin1905.Thisarticlediscussesthebackground of DerbyshireandNottinghamshirewithSouthwellMinsterasthecathedral. the fi rst newdioceseformed inthemidlands,1884,wasanamalgamation try, andNottinghamwerealldiscussedaspossiblenewcathedralcities,but during Disraeli’sConservativeadministration,1874–80.Birmingham,Coven- Major changestothediocesanstructureofChurchEnglandbegan University ofNottingham,UK John Beckett some towninSouthYorkshire, Newcastle,and‘WhataboutBirmingham?’. deciding wheretheseshould be,addinghisownsuggestions:Nottingham,Liverpool, Parliamentarysession. CrosspassedtotheArchbishoponeroustaskof the 1876–77 that hewaspreparedto‘bringinabillfortheestablishment offournewsees’during of theChurchEngland. forward inthenextparliamentarysessionagovernment billtoexpandtheepiscopate House ofCommonsthatfollowingvariousdiscussions hewaspreparingtobring In February1876R.A.Cross,theConservativeHome Secretary,announcedinthe MacLagan, Nottinghamshire,Ridding,Southwell,Wordsworth Lambeth PalaceLibrary (LPL),TaitPapers96,f.256,Cross toTait,25Nov.1876. Hansard , 3rdser.,227,369–70,16Feb.1876. bishop, ChurchofEngland,county, , Vol.37No.1,Spring,2012,63–83 November 1876Crossconfi 1 Thisapparentlyinnocuousproposalsparkedmonthsof ecting thedivisiveeffectofcountyloyalties.A rmed to Archbishop Tait of Canterbury rmed toArchbishopTaitofCanterbury Derbyshire, diocese, DOI 10.1179/0047729X12Z.0000000003 Lincolns 2

hire, Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham 64 introduced intoParliamentthefi and revenuesmightbeusedtohelppromotenewdioceses.In1861,LordLyttelton a RoyalCommissionwasestablishedtoexaminehowAnglicancathedralchurches up. ThecaseforBirminghamhasalreadybeenexamined, Southwell andBirminghamprovedcontentious,tookyearsofnegotiationtoset Church broughtdiocesancreationtoahaltwithPortsmouth,alsoin1927.Both were formedforCoventry(1918),Leicester(1926–27),andDerby(1927),beforethe midlands: Southwellin1884andBirmingham1905.Subsequentlynewdioceses and Truro)1914,tennewdioceseswereformedinEngland,twoofthemthe ment oftheChurchEnglanddiocesesinmidlands.Between1877(StAlbans 5 4 3 course, Cheshire. industrial revolution—aswelllargepartsofCumberland andWestmorlandand,of included thewholeofLancashireandnorth-westYorkshire —theheartlandsof one doubtedthatsomethingneededtobedone.TheBishop ofChester’sresponsibilities sub-dividing diocesesandtherebyincreasingthenumber of bishopswasleftopen.No led toparochialsub-division,particularlyinthe1840sand 1850s, England, withitsvastparishes,andevenvasterdioceses. Variouspiecesoflegislation and urbandiocesesinthenorth.Thepositionwasparticularly awkwardinnorthern In 1865,itwasproposedthatcountydiocesesshouldbethe norminsouthernEngland an increaseinthebishopric.Thesubjectwasregularlydiscussed atchurchcongresses. to thesouthernprovince. detached fromtheDioceseofYorkand,atsametime,movednorthern fordshire tothedioceseofRochester.InturnitreceivedNottinghamshire,whichwas diocese ofEly,BuckinghamshiretotheOxford,anditsparishesinHert- shire tothedioceseofPeterborough,Huntingdonshire,andBedfordshire structure. OneofthechangesaffectedDioceseLincoln,whichshedLeicester- 1836, whichalsobroughtaboutawholesalereorganizationoftheEnglishdiocesan guide theChurchwithoutbeingoverwhelmedbyworkload. accessible totheirclergyandlaity,exerciseclericaldiscipline,generally to itsapostolictradition,diocesesoughtbeofasizethatenabledbishops of theTractarianmovement,whicharguedthat,ifChurchwastoremaintrue about parochialanddiocesanpastoralprovision.Thelatterwasaparticularconcern graphic explosionsincethemid-eighteenthcenturywasposingsomeseriousquestions the mostpressing.Yetitoccupiedagreatdealoftimeandenergybecausedemo- which thedivisionofexistingdiocesesandcreationnewoneswasperhapsnot division inthemidlandstheseyears. conclusion somethoughtsonwhyitwassodiffi Church ofEnglandfromShropshiretoLincolnshire.Thepaperoffersbyway Southwell bishopric,whichwasfi 394–404. K. D.M.Snell, Geoffrey Hill, S.Morrish,‘TheStruggle toCreateanAnglicanDioceseofBirmingham’, P. This innocuouscommentprovidesthecontextforanydiscussionofrealign- New dioceseswereformedinRiponandManchesterunderlegislationpassed The ChurchofEnglandwasfacedwithnumerousissuesinVictorianEngland, JOHN BECKETT English Dioceses:AHistoryoftheir Limits fromtheEarliestTimestoPresentDay Parish andBelonging 4 Afterthisfrenzyofactivitythematterstalled.In (Cambridge,2006),especiallych.7. rst ofseveralunsuccessfulbillsaimedatpromoting nally achievedin1884,andhadimplicationsforthe cult toachieveamicablediocesan 3 andthispaperlooksatthe Jnl ofEccl.Hist. 5 but the question of butthequestionof , 31(1980),59–88. (1900), 1852, 1852, Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham Dover werecreatedin1870,andBedford,Colchester,Guildfordsubsequently. Henry VIII’sreignpermittingtheappointmentofsuffraganbishops.Nottinghamand through camewiththedecisionin1869toreactivateunrepealedlegislationfrom sive 9 8 7 6 in thewordsof conference ofchurchmenwasconvenedinLondonon10 February1876‘topromote’, incorporating theexistingStMary’sChurch,Truro,within itssouthaisle. bishop ofthenewdiocese,drovecampaignfora cathedral,built1880–1910, Newquay, StAustell,Germans,orTruro.Intheevent, EdwardBenson,thefi Much energywasspentondebatingwhetherthecathedralshouldbeinBodmin, because, unlikeStAlbans,noneoftheCornishtownshadanoutstandingchurch. dral-in-waiting, itwasdulynominatedforpromotion. and theAbbeychurchofNormanorigininStAlbanswasconsideredtobeacathe- comprised thecountiesofHertfordshireandEssex,butastheyhadnomajortowns, St AlbansandTruro.Bothwereestablishedin1877.Thenewdioceseof sored billsin1875and1876respectivelyforthecreationofnewdiocesesbasedon R. A.Cross,whowassympathetictothecauseofdiocesansub-division.Hespon- agreed? or thecathedralselectedfromavailablechurchesaftergeographyhadbeen be animpressivebuilding,butshouldthediocesedeterminedbycathedral, Both viewsacceptedthatacathedralwasfundamentaltodiocese,anditshould writing in1860: which wouldsubsequentlycometohaunttheirauthor,RevdChristopherWordsworth, churches whichcouldbepromoted.Thisviewwasperhapsbestsummedupinwords view wasputforwardbythosewhobelievedthegreattownsalreadyhadappropriate ing inadvanceachurchwhichwouldbeappropriateasthecathedral.Analternative the geographyofanynewdioceseshouldtakeintoaccountimportanceidentify- towns orcounties,andhowshouldthecathedralbechosen?Oneargumentwas ‘History, CelticismandPropaganda in theFormationofDioceseTruro’, John BeckettandDavidWindsor,‘Truro: DioceseandCity’, Ancient andModern Owen Chadwick,‘TheVictorianDiocese ofStAlbans’,inR.Runcie(ed.), Christopher Wordsworth, R. A.Burns, 94–101; P.S.Morrish,‘TheCreationoftheAnglicanDioceseLiverpool’, P. T.Marsh, 238–66; Burns, Any changerequiredlegislationandtheChurchofEnglandfacedalargelyunrespon- Once itwasclearthatthegovernmentwillingto promotenewdioceses,a In 1874,aConservativegovernmentwasreturnedtopowerwithHomeSecretary, and ifthedesireisright,letthembeenabledtoattainit. become aCathedral.Iftheinhabitantsofdistrictortownaredesiroussuchresult, some nobleancientchurch,distinguishedbyarchitecturalbeauty,whichmightsoon there isscarcelyalargedistrict,oranypopuloustowninEngland,whichdoesnotpossess Two particularissuesdominatedthediscussions.Shouldnewdiocesesbebasedon government throughthemiddledecadesofcentury.Theonlypartialbreak- The DiocesanRevivalintheChurch of England,c.1800 The VictorianChurchinDecline:ArchbishopTaitandtheofEngland, 1868 Diocesan Revival The Times (1977),71–100. On aProposedSub-divisionofDioceses , 201;H.M.Brown, , ‘thegeneralmovementfortheincreaseofEpiscopate THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS The StoryofTruroCathedral Cornish Studies (1860),40. 7 –

1870 8 Trurowasacompromise (Oxford,1999),192–205. Northern Hist. , 11(2003),220–7;P.S.Morrish, Cathedral andCity:StAlbans (Redruth,1977). Southern Hist. , xxxii 9 – (1996),176;

1882 , 5(1983), (1969), that that rst 65 6 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham ot okhr,Nwate n ehp imnhmwt oety[ .]Itisquite . south Yorkshire,Newcastle,andperhapsBirminghamwith Coventry[. from Crosstheacidiccommentthat‘theprincipalpoints areNottingham,Liverpool, controversy, butindoingsoheannoyedtheHomeSecretary evenmore,drawing ity ofacombineddiocesewiththeIsleMan. appropriate towntobetherecipientofanewsee,andinLiverpoolaspossibil- midlands aboutthelocationofanynewdioceses,inYorkshiremost churches inpublicpatronagewhichperhapsmightbemadeavailable’ascathedrals. Shrewsbury. Hewascarefultopointoutwhichoftheplaceshelistedhad‘important Rochdale, BlackburnorPreston,Newcastle,Suffolk,Nottingham,thePotteries,and Liverpool, BirminghamandtheBlackCountry,Leeds,Sheffi to befarmorediffi the provinceofCanterbury,togetherwithEarlChichesterandtwoMPs. London, Exeter,Lichfi Committees underthechairmanshipofArchbishopCanterbury.TheBishops some sortofagreementforalimitedexpansionhesetuptwoHomeBishoprics support awholesalebreak-upoftheexistingdiocesanstructure,andtotryachieve London. Acorrespondentofthe castle, Bradford,Birmingham,Coventry,Sheffi tion wasrife.ProposalscameforwardfornewseestobebasedonLiverpool,New- fundraising. specifi redistribution anddivisionofdioceses’.Acommitteewasappointedtodrawup ‘a well-organisedschemefortheincreaseofHomeEpiscopate’,and‘the Upper House,ArchbishopTaitofCanterburymovedaresolutionwhichcalledfor of Commonswhyhewasintroducingabilltoamendtheexistingstructure.In landowner andleadingcampaignerfordiocesanreform,explainedtotheHouse now goingonthroughoutthecountry’.A.J.BeresfordHopeMP,aDerbyshire 14 13 12 11 10 be. nominate fournewbishoprics,andthearchbishopwas todecidewheretheyshould up layingdownhisownstipulations,notablythatthe bill hewasproposingwould Warwickshire, andSouthwarkintheArchdioceseofCanterbury. castle, theWestRiding,andLiverpoolinArchdioceseofYork,Southwell, to createsixnewdiocesesinadditionStAlbansandTruro.ThesewerebeNew- The CommitteeoftheHomeEpiscopateFundbroughtforwarditsownproposals 66 Yearbook oftheChurchEngland Cathedrals list identifi Guardian The Times LPL, TaitPapers96,f.256,Crossto Tait, 25Nov.1876. LPL, TaitPapers96,f.258,toCross, 29Nov.1876;Morrish,‘AnglicanDioceseofLiverpool’. Church QuarterlyReview Tait repliedsomewhatambivalently,largelybecausehe waswellawareofthe Setting upthecommitteeswasstraightforward,butreachingaconsensusproved The HomeSecretarydidnotbelievethatParliamenthadthepoliticalwillto In thisnewatmosphereofoptimismforthosefavouringdiocesandivision,specula- 14

c proposals,andanAdditionalHomeBishoprics’Fundwasestablishedtobegin JOHN BECKETT , 14June1876.Extensiveproposals of asimilarnaturehadbeenbroughtforwardbefore,e.g.the ed byC.H.Freweninthe (1854). , 11Feb.1876; 10 cult. Throughthesummerof1876there weredisputesinthe Guardian (Oct.1876),208–24.Thecommittee reportwaspublishedinJuly1876: eld, andLincolnweremembersofthecommitteeconsidering , 16Feb.1876; (1883),304–5. Guardian Guardian , 5Aug.1846,andGeorgeGilbertScott’s book Offi cial YearbookoftheChurchEngland inJune1876proposingbishopricsfor eld, Bristol,SouthWales,and 13 AnexasperatedCrossended eld,HalifaxorBradford, 12 (1883),303. Additional Offi cial 11

Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham quently proposalscameforwardonvariousoccasionsbetween1847and1867. dated backtotheearly1830swhenitwasfi diocese basedonthecollegiatechurchofStMaryVirgin,SouthwellMinster, the wordinginHansardmighthavebeentakentoimply.Theideaofpromotinga parliamentary technicality. clear thatallchurchmenmustbeofonemindbeforethebillisbroughtin’. 18 17 16 15 property intheEcclesiasticalCommissioners.Thechurch wasreducedonceagainto that yearsuspendedthefutureappointmentsofprebends, andvestedthechurch’s of Prebends(canons)survivedwithfewfurtherchanges until 1840.Legislationpassed was reducedtoparochialstatus.ItrestoredunderQueen Mary,andtheCollege under thetermsofChantriesAct1547chapter was dissolvedandthechurch King HenryVIIIconsidereditasthepossibleseatofanew dioceseinthe1540s,but was raisedtothedignityofmotherchurch county ofNottinghamshire. Saxon foundationuntilthenineteenthcentury.Earlyin twelfthcenturySouthwell building forcathedralstatus.Itdatedfrom956 York intothedioceseofLincoln.NoonedoubtedthatSouthwellwasanappropriate or lessthesamegeographyascounty,wastransferredfromarchdioceseof case gainedmomentumwhentheArchdeaconryofNottingham,whichwasmore and Derby’. [it] wouldnotcompromisetherivalryoftwocountytowns,Nottingham .] . .]asuitablecathedral[. . responded that‘heapprovedthechurchofSouthwell[. Nottinghamshire wouldbe’?Crossreplied,‘Southwell’,towhichBeresfordHope the cathedralcityofSeetobeformedoutcountiesDerbyshireand bring togetherDerbyshireandNottinghamshire.BeresfordHopeasked,‘where did soonthepremisethatitwouldcreatefournewbishoprics,oneofwhich diocese, andthelocationofcathedral.WhenCrossintroducedbillin1877,he the controversywhichfollowedhingedontwoissues:physicalmakeupof again until1889. new diocesebasedoneitherBirminghamorCoventry.Thematterwasnotraised earlier comments,andfurtherdiscussioninthe1870sonpossiblepromotionofa back tothe1830srelatingdiocesanrationalizationinwestmidlands,Cross’s Coventry hadquietlydisappearedofftheradar.Thiswasdespitediscussionsdating and Derbyshire,‘outofthecountyNorthumberland’.Birminghamand/or create fournewbishoprics,forLiverpool,Wakefi he introducedhisBishopricsBillintotheCommons.Thebill,explained,wasto Although agreementseemedunlikely,Crosschosetopressahead,andon1May1877 Century DiscussiononEcclesiastical Geography’, the ChurchofEngland 193–204; G.F.A.Best, Lord Henley, Hansard Morrish, ‘Birmingham’,61–4. Ibid., ff.302–3,CrosstoTait,19Dec.1876. of theDioceseRipon’, The exchangebetweenCrossandBeresfordHopewasrathermorenuancedthan The Nottinghamoptionfortheeastmidlandsremainedincontention,buthere , 3rdser.,234(1877),180–3. 17 Plan forChurchReform ThebillwasreadasecondtimeinJune,butloston19July 16

(Cambridge,1984),318–25;P.S.Morrish, ‘CountyandUrbanDioceses:Nineteenth- Temporal Pillars:QueenAnne’sBounty, theEcclesiasticalCommissioners,and Publicns oftheThoresbySoc. THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS (9thedn,1833),44,79;P.S.Morrish, ‘LeedsandtheDismemberment JnlEccl.Hist. , 2ndser., rst suggestedbyLordHenley.Subse- ad , eld orHalifax,Nottinghamshire xxvi andretainedtheessentialsofits iv (1975),286. (1994),64;Burns, Diocesan Revival 18 The 67 15 ,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham opinion thattheseeofdioceseNottinghamshouldbeintownSouthw that Nottinghamshireshouldbecomeaseparatediocese,and‘gaveitashisdeliberate told theEcclesiasticalCommissionersthathisdiocesewastoolarge.Hesuggested fi his ownrhetoricalquestion,accusethecontemporarychurchofabandoning‘thevery Newcastle, Plymouth,leftwithoutbishops’?Theywould,hesuggestedinanswerto ‘to ourLiverpoolsandBirminghams,toLeeds,Nottingham,Sheffi Commission. What,hehadaskedin1860,wouldtheearlyChristianfathershavesaid which werethemselvesanoutcomeofhisworkasamembertheCathedrals their numbers.YetWordsworthcouldhardlyignorehisowncommentsof1860, were overworked,andthattheonlywaytoalleviatesituationwasbydoubling dividing thediocese.Afterall,hehadtoldConvocationin1864thatallbishops Christopher Wordsworth.ThenewbishopwasboundtofollowJackson’sleadon when in1869BishopJacksonwastranslatedtoLondonandsucceededatLincolnby creating aseparatediocesewiththecathedralatSouthwellwasfurthercomplicated Nottingham. take theirtitles.Thesuffraganwastohaveresponsibilityforthearchdeaconryof identifi (effectively thecounty),butnamewaschosenbecauseitoneoftowns within hisowndiocese.Nottinghammeantinecclesiasticaltermsthearchdeaconry petitioned theCrownforappointmentofasuffraganbishopNottingham government drawnupin1860andpublishedthe its thirdreportthatNottinghamshireshouldbeaseparatediocese.Apetitiontothe Nothing cameofthis,butin1855theCathedralsCommissionrecommended 1873. parochial statusandthecollegedisappearedwithdeathoflastprebendin 24 23 22 21 20 19 its own’. .]abishop of . suffragan, withatitlederivedfromit,maybeexpected tolead[. Wordsworth recognizedthesignifi of Nottinghaminthecathedral-likechurchStMary theVirgin,Nottingham; already preparedintheCollegiateChurchofSouthwell’. a cathedralfortheproposednewdiocesebasedonNottinghamshire‘wouldbefound 68 rst principlesofmissionary labour’. Quoted Wordsworth, Guardian Minster N. Summers, Ridding, J. OvertonandE.Wordsworth, at NottinghamissetoutinBritishLibrary (BL),AdditionalMSS,44,346,f.384. suffragans shouldbeallocatedspecifi O. Chadwick, Ibid., 28. People inCentralNottinghamshire,1820 The 1837arrangementsdidnotsuitthebishopsofLincoln.In1852BishopJackson The caseforseparatingtheArchdeaconryofNottinghamfromLincoln,and Within afewmonthsofhisenthronementatLincoln,Wordsworthsuccessfully 19 ed insixteenth-centurylegislationasplacesfromwhichsuffragansmight JOHN BECKETT

(Southwell,1974);MichaelAustin, 24 George Ridding:SchoolmasterandBishop , 6June1883. A ProspectofSouthwell 23 The VictorianChurch ArchdeaconHenryMackenziewasconsecratedSuffragan Bishop On aProposedSubdivision Christopher Wordsworth:Bishopof Lincoln, 1807 c areaswithinacountyornot.Wordsworth’sargument forasuffragan , pt2(1970),344.Practicevariedinthe nineteenthcenturyastowhether (Southwell,1988),18–28;R.M.Beaumont, – 1870 cance ofthisevent:‘the appointmentofabishop ‘A timeofunhappycommotion’:TheChurchEnglandandthe (Chesterfi 22 , 41–3. (1908),164. eld, 2010), ch.2. Ecclesiastical Gazette 21

The ChapterofSouthwell – 1885 (1888),302;Laura ed Derby, eld, notedthat ell’. 20

Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham on thepetitioninitseditionof11April1873: Nottingham Journal almost immediatelyapparent,withthepublicationofaforcefuleditorialin other propertyforadeanetc.’.Thecontentionstirredupbysuchproposalswas Southwell hadit:‘aMinsterandanancientpalacesuitableforabishopaswell bishop —bynowitevenhadathrone had theproperty.StMary’s,Nottingham,wasacceptableasseatofasuffragan diocese andthecountytownmightgiveitsnametodiocese,butSouthwell proposed thatthebishop’sseeshouldbeatSouthwell.Thecountymight went onestagefurther.Whilereferringtoanewbishopricof principle ofthecountyasasuitablegeographicalareafordiocese,butpetition 300,000 peoplewith300clergysothatitneededabishopofitsown.Thisechoedthe were infavourofanewdiocese,andpartlythatNottinghamshirewascounty here isinteresting.ItwaspartlythatthepreviousandpresentbishopsofLincoln Commissioners tosupportthecreationofabishopricNottingham.Thereasoning only underdiscussion,apetitionwasraisedinNottinghamurgingtheEcclesiastical it tobeSouthwell,orNottingham?In1873,whenthebishopricsissuewasstill 27 26 25 more problematic. people, itseemed,supportedthecaseforaseparatediocese, butthecathedralwas should legislationeverbecontemplated,clearlyexisted in substantialmeasure:many to churchdemandsfornewdioceses,thepotential confl ers. from ‘Southwellanditsvicinity’signedapetitiontothe EcclesiasticalCommission- Southwell optionwiththeminsterasnewcathedral. Atthismeeting1013people and atapublicmeetinginSouthwellon2Junespeaker afterspeakerextolledthe A meetingofbishops,clergy,andlaityon21Mayreaffi Southwell shouldbeconsideredasthecathedralfor newdioceseofNottingham. Nottingham petitionedtheEcclesiasticalCommissionerson1Mayrequestingthat A furiousdebateensued.Allbuttwooftheruraldeanswithinarchdeaconry Church ofEnglandRecordOffi Nottingham Journal Nottingham ParishChurchofStMary theVirgin:AShortHistoryandGuide throne (StMary’sVestryMinutes). I amgratefultoAndrewAbbotforhelponthispoint:D.J.Peters, The Chancelwasrefurbishedin1871–72, duringMackenzie’stimeassuffragan,inordertoaddasuitable The suffraganissuefocusedlocalattentiononthequestionofcathedral:was required inNottingham,connectionwiththenewBishopricwhenformed.Ed be disposedof,andtheproceedsappliedtoerectionofanybuildingswhichmay and thereisnoreasonwhyiftheinterestsofdioceserequiresittheseshouldnot there arecertainecclesiasticalbuildingsatSouthwellisamatterofverysmallimportance, for thecountyisfarmoreconvenientasacentreofactionthanSouthwell.Thefactthat located inNottinghamastheprincipalspotwhereworkhastobedone,andwhich his ecclesiasticalassociatesaretobemadeserviceablethediocesetheyought a smallplacelikeSouthwellastheresidenceofBishopandChapter.If Whilst givingpublicitytothe[petition]wethinkitwouldbeaseriousmistakeselect 27 Sincein1873therewasasyetnoimmediateprospectof thegovernmentbowing , 11Apr.1873. . Thenewspaper,ToryandAnglicanbyinclination,commented ce (CERO),fi THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS le 47,749,pt1,1–5; 25 —butadioceseneededrathermore,and Nottingham Journal rmed theSouthwelloption, ict inNottinghamshire, (1974),7. , 4June1873. Nottingham N.J. 26 , it 69 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham 70 look intothevariousoptionstookmuchsameview. opposed anydivisiononparliamentaryconstituencylines, andacommitteesetupto Bishoprics EndowmentFundpublisheditsownreportinJuly1876: to boththegeographyand,morecritically,cathedral.TheAdditionalHome the summerworeonsuchcertaintycameincreasinglytolookmisplacedinrelation Church, Nottingham,becomingthefutureCathedralofnewdiocese’. Derbyshire shouldformwithNottinghamshirethefuturediocese,‘StMary’s for thearchdeaconriesofStaffordandDerbyatLichfi of twocountieswascautiouslyfavourable.InMay1876,ameetingthecommittee Nottingham. proposal forasinglebishopricbringingtogetherthearchdeaconriesofDerbyand new bishopricswouldbefoundedinthemidlands,andthisledtoacompromise Southwell’. according toBishopWordsworth,‘oughtbeadistinctdiocesewithresidenceat and Lichfi split: thatthearchdeaconriesofNottinghamandDerbyshouldbetakenfromLincoln clear totheArchbishopofCanterburytheirdesirethatbothdiocesesshouldbe was underwayastowheretheseshouldbe,thebishopsofLincolnandLichfi when Crosshadconfi arrived in1876,itdidsoasomewhatdifferentcontext.Inthesummerof Nottingham wouldbecreatedanindependentdiocese,but,whendiocesanreform 31 30 29 28 unanimously backedaresolutionopposinganysub-division ofDerbyshireforchurch conferences overthefollowingmonths.On7November theDiocesanConference populous toformadioceseofitself’,andthebaton wastakenupatvarious Mercury digging intheirheelsaboutbecomingindividualdioceses. InSeptember,the of EastDerbyshire’. whole ofDerbyshirethecommitteerecommendedjust‘theparliamentarydivision If Nottinghamshirewasnotconsideredsuffi Mercury Derby Mercury Offi Derby Mercury Commissioners, fi 1876; f.213,LincolntoCanterbury,4 Apr.1876;f.217,Committeereport,6CERO,Ecclesiastical LPL, TaitPapers217,f.207,Lincoln toCanterbury,29Mar.1876;f.209,Lichfi should betheseetown. of buildingssuitableforachapter.Onthewhole,committeerecommendNottingham church sinceSaxondays,andcanpointtotheexistencethereofanepiscopalpalace, handsome church.Southwellenjoystheancientprestigeofwhathasbeenacollegiate Nottingham orSouthwell.Theformerismuchthelargerplace,andhasawellbuilt There canbenodoubtastothenecessityofaseeNottinghamwithitstownat The initialresponsetotheproposalforatwo-archdeaconrydiocesespanningmost This debatehadtakenplaceentirelyontheassumptionthatArchdeaconryof During theautumnof1876itbecameincreasinglyclear thatbothcountieswere cial Year-Book of theChurchEngland JOHN BECKETT , 13Sept.1876. ledthewaybyarguingthat‘surelyDerbyshireissuffi eld respectivelytoformnewandindependentdioceses:Nottinghamshire, 28 Thiswasfaircomment,butitsoonclearthatonlyoneofthefour , 8Nov.1876. , 8Nov.1876. le 5797/1. le 30 rmed hiswillingnesstopromotenewbishoprics,andthedebate Thiswasnotapopularsuggestion.TheBishopofLichfi (1883),305; cient onitsown,ratherthanaddthe Church Quart.Rev. eld acceptedthatthewholeof 31

, (October1876),217–18. eld to Canterbury,29Mar. ciently large and eld made 29 Yetas Derby Derby eld Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham administrations. need tobetemporarilyunitedfordiocesanpurposesasasteptowardsseparate reiterating totheConferencehisviewthatDerbyshireandNottinghamshiremight ment andorganization’. should, underanycircumstances,remainunitedforallpurposesofChurchgovern- “dissection” ofthecountyDerby,anddesirethatprevails expressed inforcibletermsthestrongfeelingthatgenerallyexistsagainstany purposes. LieutenantColonelSirHenryWilmot,Bt,‘insecondingtheproposal, 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 1 November,‘AlthoughStMary’sChurchatNottingham maybeconsideredin than StMary,Nottingham,wasthecathedral. could beanticipatedinthemidlands. be diffi diocese eachforDerbyshireandNottinghamshire,but‘I fearthatatpresentitwould ‘no doubtthateventuallythiswouldbeveryright’and therewouldonedaybea across thecountry.On19December1876,hetoldArchbishop Taitthathehad case forseparatedioceses.Hewouldnotbudgeonthenumberofnewbishoprics similar sentimentstobeheldinthecaseofLichfi being severedfromLincolnshiretobetiedDerbyshire’,addingthatheunderstood as Nottinghamshire,withitsrapidlyincreasingpopulation,wouldgainnothingby as LincolnDioceseisconcernedthepresentbishopwouldconsenttonootherscheme unanimously. Wordsworth lenthisbackingtotheproposalandmotionwascarried Trollope thegenerousofferwhichformedsecondpartofhisspeech: new see’.BishopWordsworthwasinthechairandhaddoubtlessdiscussedwith large portionofhispapertotheadvocatingerectionNottinghamshireintoa rector ofLeasinghamandArchdeaconStow,openedproceedings‘devoteda October 1876theLincolnDiocesanConferencemetinLincoln.EdwardTrollope, Austin, LPL, TaitPapers228,ff.43–7. LPL, TaitPapers96,ff.302–3. BL, AdditionalMS51,272,f.183.The noteisundatedandendorsedbyCross‘maybeburnt’. Guardian Derby Mercury Derby Mercury The Derbyshirechurchmenwerekeentoensurethat Southwell Minster,rather Despite thisshowofindependence,Crosswaspoliticallyunwillingtoacceptthe within ayearfromthepresentday. erection ofaseeNottingham,onconditionthatnineteenothersgivesimilarsumeach same principleinregardtoourowndioceses,bymakingafi was soonrespondedtobytwootherofferingsofthesameamount,Idesireadopt offer of£5,000,madetotheCommitteeHomeBishopricsEndowmentFund before ourDiocesanConferencetoday,andprofi be atonceraisedtowardstheaccomplishmentofobjectIhaveprivilegesetting Deeming ittobeunworthyofthisgreatdiocesethatanysumlessthan£10,000should Opinion wasjustashardontheothersideofproposednewdiocese.On13 cult’. Stage orTwo , 1Nov.1876. 36 34 , 15Nov.1876;MichaelAustin, , 13Sept.,1,15Nov.,20Dec.1876. Crossconfi InamemorandumtotheHomeSecretary,Trollopestatedthat‘asfar 33

, 166–7. 32 rmed on30January1877thatonlyasinglenewdiocese OnlytheBishopofLichfi THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS 37 A StageorTwoBeyondChristendom 38 ting bythefactthataconditional eld dioceseandDerbyshire. Asthe eld soundedanoteofcaution, rst offerof£500towardsthe Derby Mercury (Matlock,2001),165. putiton 35 71 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham new dioceseon28May1884after muchdebate. fi 40 39 72 episcopi government indecidingthatneitherNottinghamnorDerbyshouldbethe between NottinghamshireandDerbyshire‘nodoubtinfl Archdeacon BroughMaltbyofNottinghamwaslatertosuggestthatthejealousies structurally suitableforaCathedral’.However,Southwell some respectssuperiortoanyinDerbyshire,ithasnochapter-house,andisnot gure LPL, BensonPapers,7,ff.300–2. Derby Mercury connected withnearlyallpartsofNottinghamshireandDerbyshire[seeFigure1]. to provide,atallevents,someportionofthenecessaryendowments.Southwelliswell would (itissupposed)bewillingwithorwithouttheconsentofParliament,alsoable, Commissioners deriveaverylargerevenuefromtheappropriatedprebendalestates,and suitable forabishop’spalace,deanery,andresidencecanons,&c.TheEcclesiastical Chapter houseandthereareinconnectionwiththechurchseveralhouseswhichquite is ineverywayfi JOHN BECKETT SouthwellMinster,foundedin956 1 ’. 40

, 1Nov.1876. t tobemadetheCathedralof animportantdiocese.Ithasafi ad , andconsecratedasthecathedral forthe uenced thechoiceof 39 sedes ne Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham the lion’sshareofhistimeandattentiontoonegreat town,whichhewouldbe country ‘becausehecouldattendtherequietlytohisdiocesan dutiesinsteadofgiving alternative onaccountofitscapitularchurchStKatherine’s. Selwynpreferredthe he consideredtobefarmoreappropriatethanWolverhampton, asuggestedurban town withthetrappingsofadiocesan of population,arguinginsteadthatSouthwellwasinmostrespectsanecclesiastical Guardian pretext foradefenceoftheSouthwelloptionwhichhepublishedin vicar ofBlidworthandaleadingNottinghamshireecclesiologist,usedthearticleas any principleofcomparisoninconjunctionwithSouthwell’. certainly offerafi Review In October1876BeresfordHopewroteastingingattackinthe 44 43 42 41 it asmoreakintohisowndiocesanheadquartersat Lichfi Southwell wasanunfortunatechoiceofresidence. knowledge ofBradshaw’srailwaytimetablewouldtell interestedobserversthat bishop ofthenewdiocese,GeorgeRidding,latercomplained thatevenacursory have neededtolivefromthestationhadheresidedin the countytown. railway inNottinghamwouldneedtobesetagainstthedistancebishop Archdeacon Maltbysuggestedthatthiswasanadvantagesinceaccessibilitytothe by publictransport,sinceitwasonarailwaybranchline.Somewhatbizarrely, new diocese,hadapopulationof58,000in1881.NorwasSouthwelleasilyaccessible rose from86,000in1871to186,0001881.Derby,thesecondtownofproposed 1877, fi were inprogressbecause,bythetermsofNottinghamBoroughExtensionAct Nottingham, alreadysubstantial,morethandoubledinsizewhilethenegotiations not inanywaystandcomparisonwiththegreatindustrialtownsofdiocese. Southwell waspotentiallythesmallestdiocesancentreincountrybyfar.Itcould accurately bedescribedasasubstantialvillage.Withpopulationin1881of2897, First, theplaceitselfwasscarcelyworthyofbeingcalledatown,andcouldmost responded: cathedral. HeprivatelyprintedtheletterandsentacopytoBeresfordHope,who Derby Mercury LPL, BensonPapers7,ff.300–2,statement byArchdeaconMaltby. Nottinghamshire Archives,M.10,353, f.38,A.J.BeresfordHopetoWhitworth,24Jan.1877. admitted hisauthorshipinwritingto R.H.Whitworth(seenextfootnote). Church Quart.Rev. What werethepointsforandagainstSouthwell?Infavourwasitsheritage. Bishop SelwynofLichfi Against thispositiveviewpoint,Southwellpresentedseveralobviousproblems. Southwell, thereforetheBishopshouldbeatNottingham’. deliberate lightofanaprioriassumption‘becauseNottinghamismuchbiggerthan which ariseoutoflookingataquestionnotasitreallyisinallitsbearings,butthe The selectionofNottinghaminsteadwouldbeonethosefartoocommonmistakes ve adjoiningparisheswerebroughtwithinthetownboundaryandpopulation ontheStMary’s,Nottinghamoption:‘Ifbetaken,itcan . Whitworthquestionedtheneedforabishoptoliveinprincipalcentre , 21Oct.1885. (October1876),217–18.Thearticle waspublishedanonymously,butBeresfordHope ne townchurchascathedral,thoughnotonetobethoughtofon eld alsothoughtSouthwellanappropriatesee.Hesaw THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS headquarters including,ofcourse, 44

42 41 eld. RuralLichfi R.H.Whitworth, Church Quarterly a ready-m Nottingham 43 Thefi eld ade rst 73 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham into thecountry’. energies limitedtothattown’,and‘ifhewasnotbekilledtheymusttakehim since hewasnowarguingthatifabishopbasedintown‘oughttohavehis pointed toitsfi because until1840ithadretaineditsCollegeofCanons,ahistorywhich new dioceses,anditunderminedoneoftheclaimsonbehalfSouthwellthat, time asachaptermightexist.Thisfudgewassubsequentlycontinuedfortheother legislation simplyauthorizedtheappointmentofabishopbyletterspatentuntilsuch over StAlbans.Toavoidpotentialtroubleinparliamentandtokeepdowncosts,the important inthecreationsofRiponandManchester,butissuewasinitiallyfudged whether ornottheyshouldbeprovidedwithchapters.Collegiatestatushadbeen a numberofawkwardecclesiasticalquestions.Onecontentiousissueconcerned the 1870slegislationtookexistingparishchurchesastheircathedrals,andthisraised choice wereinanumberofrespectsratherhollow.Thenewdiocesesfoundedunder Derbyshire. further representationsinrelationtoseparatediocesesforNottinghamshireand new bishopricwastobeinSouthwell,andtheHomeSecretaryrefusedaccept Despite thediscussionsin1876,nooneseemedanylongertodoubtthat during Wordsworth’sepiscopatewaslatertorecall: institution ofasuffraganin1870.AsclergymanwhoworkedtheLincolndiocese markedly differentbothfromhispamphletof1860andcommentsfollowingthe expected todo,ifhelivedinit’. 48 47 46 45 tedious business,withtheCommissionersqueryingand questioning everylastdetail. fabric toincludearefurbishmentplan.Workcommenced in1852.Itwasaslowand and in1851theyaskedtheirarchitect,EwanChristian, toprepareareportonthe had takenoverresponsibilityfortheminsterfabric.They foundthechurchinamess, but somewhatlessaccurateonthefi of theirexperiencedarchitectMrEwanChristian’.Hewas rightonthesecondpoint, fully restoredattheexpenseofEcclesiasticalCommissioners, underthedirection of Lincolnclaimedinaletterto 74 Guardian LPL, TaitPapers228,f.47. LPL, TaitPapers228,f.49. 1868–91’, the ecclesiasticalproblemsofLeicester: GeraldRimmington,‘BishopW.C.MageeandthetownofLeicester, of DrWilliamMagee,BishopPeterborough (1868–91)whospentmuchofhisworkinglifedealingwith The demandsonaVictorianbishop from largeindustrialtownsaremostobviouslydemonstratedinthecase Quoted J.OvertonandE.Wordsworth, Second, thetrappingswhichinsomewaysappearedtomakeSouthwellanideal than fromagreatandthrivingtown. it wasnotabsolutelysettledthatthenewseemusttakeitsnamefromavillagerather an importantmeetinginNottingham,calledtoconsiderthedivisionofdiocese,when ber howheoncemadememiserablebycheckingastrongexpressionoflocalfeelingat I thinkhefounditdiffi Finally, thebuildingwasinastateofdisrepair.PrecentorEdmundVenables JOHN BECKETT , 6June1883. Midl. Hist. 48 tness tobeacathedral. , 23(1998),121–35. 46 Thecountry,ofcourse,meantSouthwell,andthisviewwas cult torealisethepopularmovementsofourowntimes;Iremem- Christopher Wordsworth:BishopofLincoln, 1807 The Times 45 rst one.In1841theEcclesiasticalCommissioners 47 Wordsworth’spositionwasmoreinteresting, inSeptember1876thatithad‘beencare- – 1885 (1888),305–6. Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham 51 50 49 of itsfuturebishopwithoutfurtheradornment,ortheadditionanyaccessories’. emphasized inthe1870s:‘ifrequiredforsuchause,itstandsreadyreception 1853 todesignsbyW.F.Moffatt,anditsappropriatenessforcathedralstatuswas to rathermoresuccessfulrestorationworkthanSouthwell,notablybetween1845and not onthesamescaleasSouthwell.Duringnineteenthcenturyithadbeensubject Nottingham, wasandindeedstillisagrandchurchofcathedral-likeproportions,if The exasperatedparishionersfi of thetownandchurch of thecounty,onallpublicoccasions’. church ofthepoorparishandyetitisinnoinconsiderable degreethechurch Morse alsocommentedthat‘StMary’sbyitsposition, hasbecomeverymuchthe town worthyofbeingthechiefchurch—ifnotCathedral —ofthenewDiocese’. are notbehindinliberalitytotheChurch,bymaking principalChurchintheir people havenotdonemuchfortheBishopricofSouthwell, theywillshowthat Mary’s, wassubsequentlytonote:‘Iventurehopethat, especiallyasNottingham tions abouthavingthebishopricintown.AsCanon FrancisMorse,vicarofSt little totheendowmentofbishopric,andapparently madefewifanyrepresenta- diocese andcathedral. one, foundcompelling,perhapsbecauseofhisownexperienceinsettingupTruro than inSouthwell.ItwasanargumentwhichArchbishopBensonofCanterbury,for In otherwords,theset-upcostsofdioceseinNottinghamwouldbemuchgreater could beobtainedatafractionofthecostwhichwouldinvolvedNottingham. Such buildingsalreadyexistedinSouthwell,andanyadditionallandor available nearthechurchforacathedralcloseorsuitableresidencebishop. Nottingham, StMary’swaspartiallyovershadowedbylacewarehouses.Noland the cathedralclergy.Sittingasitdidinmiddleofbuilt-upareaVictorian disadvantage wasthatitlackedtheappropriatebuildings,includinghousesfor By thenitwasalreadytheseatofasuffraganbishop.WhereStMary’sat was closedagainimmediatelyafterwards. temporarily patchedupfortheserviceatwhichitbecameacathedralin1884,and speeding upoftherestorationwork.Evenso,minsterhadtobehastilyand creation ofacathedral,althoughthispleabytheparishionersdidproducesome the choiraislesofcloister’.Thesewerehardlypropitiouscircumstancesfor fabric notrequiredfordailyworshipandanoccasionalcarvercarvingfoliagein ‘the sightofasinglestonemason,employedforthemostpartonportions of coarsewhitecalico’.Andtheonlyhopetheyhadworkeverfi of astonemason’sshed’.Archeswerestoppedupwith‘worn-outcurtainsandpieces choristers robinginacornerofonetranseptandtheotherpresenting‘theappearance building. Thechoirhadbeendismantledsotheytomeetinthenave,with the debateaboutcathedralforproposednewdiocese—stateof Quoted inPeters, Guardian Harold Brooke, 1997), especiallyappx2. By contrast,thealternative‘cathedral’wasinexcellentshape.StMaryVirgin, Nor didNottinghamhelpitself:astronglyNonconformist town,itcontributed , 15,29Nov.,13Dec.1876; Closed forBusiness:EwanChristian’s RestorationofSouthwellMinster1848 Nottingham ParishChurchofStMary theVirgin THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS Nottingham Journal nally complainedin1876—nodoubtinfl 49 , 16Nov.1876. , 7,17. 51 Itwas,inother – nishing was nishing 1888 uenced by uenced (Southwell, 75 50

Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham new, two-countydiocese: encouraged hisdiocesanconferencein1877toconsiderthefi £4200. the valueoffundwassuffi up foreachofthefournewbishoprics.Thediocesecouldbeestablishedonlywhen had beenraised.Underthetermsoflegislation,endowmentfundstobeset be SouthwellMinster. February 1878that‘Iamnotabletoreportanyconsiderable amountofmoney The pleaseemstohavefallenondeafears,sincehe told theHomeSecretaryin already clearwhilethebillwasstillbeforeParliament.B received theRoyalAssenton15August. new diocesedelayedtheprocessofsettingitup. Birmingham, lukewarmsupportfromtheprincipaltowninareaofaproposed was entitledtoanyparticularpositionand,aswithLeedsandsubsequentlyalso within NottinghamsimilartothatofLeedsparishchurch,butinchurchlawneither words, acathedralchurchinfunctionifnotreality.StMary’sclaimedprestige 56 55 54 53 52 county whichhadpreviouslybeeninthedioceseofLichfi conry ofDerbywasreorganizedtoincludeparishesinthesouthandwest well wastoconsistofthearchdeaconriesNottinghamandDerby.TheArchdea- provisions’. ridicule ifnowthatthebillhasbecomeanactadvantagebenotsoontakenofits the BillChurchmenwilllaythemselvesopentonosmallcriticismandperhaps Tait inFebruary1879that‘Icannothelpthinkingafterallthisoutcryfor matched byvigorousfundraising,andhecomplainedratherpetulantlytoArchbishop expected hispoliticalsupportinsteeringthelegislationthroughParliamenttobe the newdiocesecouldnotbefounded.TheHomeSecretarymadeitclearthathe a year,andresidenceworth£500year.Untiltheseconditionswereachieved, endowment fund.Theintentionwastoprovidethenewbishopwithasalaryof£3000 of Lincoln,and£300fromtheBishopLichfi bishop’s salarywastobeconstitutedby£500takenfromtheincomeofBishop 76 Chris Hodsonforhelponthispoint. deaconry ofNottinghamhavesubsequently beentransferredtoSheffi transferred toYorkandsubsequently toSheffi were transferredfromDerbytothesee ofLeicesterin1888–89,andthreeparishesnorthDerbyshirewere Neither archdeaconrywasexactlyco-terminouswithitsrespectivecounty. SeveralparishesinLeicestershire Statutes oftheRealm Derby Mercury LPL, TaitPapers247,f.238,Crossto Canterbury,11Feb.1879. The Times The fi bishops tobeexceptedfromthisgeneralspiritofbenefi churches, andintheaugmentationofincomestheirclergymen, nottoallowtheir their ownestatesinbuildingschoolsandparsonages,the andrestorationof I urgemyrichfriendsamongthelaity,whohavedoneso muchfortheChurchon The potentialproblemswhenitcametoraisingthefundingforSouthwellwere The HomeSecretaryreintroducedtheepiscopatebillon18March1878andit 54 JOHN BECKETT rst hurdlehadbeencleared,butnothingcould actuallyhappenuntilfunds Thatmeantraisingacapitalsumofatleast£70,000.ForSouthwell,the , 30Aug.1878. 55 , 3Oct.1877. , 41&42Victoriac.xxx1878. cient toproduceanannualsumofbetween£3500and eld. Parishesin southYorkshirewhichwerepartoftheArch- 52 Underitsterms,thenewdioceseofSouth- eld. Therestwastocomefromthe cence. eld. Iam gratefultoDrAnneTarverand eld. 56 nancial implicationsofthe ishop SelwynofLichfi

53 Thecathedralwasto eld eld Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham Archbishop Tait, the wealthyDukeofPortlandgaveonly£500,despite apersonalapproachfrom two diocesesofLincolnandLichfi Nottingham. Trollopedevisedadevelopmentplanwhichenvisagedeachpartofthe Trollope or,ashehadbeensinceDecember1877,SuffraganBishopof to hissuccessorBishopWilliamMacLagan. later hewasdead,andthetaskofsteeringthroughdiocesanreorganizationfell for thepassingofbill’.Hewasnotdestinedtoseeoutcome:twomonths has beenpromisedfortheendowmentfund.Thegeneraldispositionbeingtowait 62 61 60 59 58 57 who didnotevenliveinthenewdiocese.GeorgeStrutt ofBelpergave£1500, largest individualdonation(£3000)wasfromtheDowager DuchessofCleveland Southwell fund.Bythesummerof1880about£33,000had beenraised,ofwhichthe Derby. should beseenasonesteptowardsaseparateseeforDerbyshire withacathedralin Beresford HopetoldameetinginLichfi tions wereinappropriateandpostponedthepastoralletteruntil1880. before theendofpresentyear’.MacLagansubsequentlydecidedeconomiccondi- in thedioceseaskingthemtohavechurchoffertoriesorcollectionsforthisobject In July1879,BishopMacLaganwasurgedto‘issueapastoralletterallincumbents strings’. ThesecretaryoftheDerbyshireCommitteerecalledmanyyearslaterthat diffi Although £1225wassubscribedatthismeeting,raisingadditionalsumsproved the moneyagreedinApril1879‘todoourbesttoraise£6,000’withintwoyears. Home Episcopate(whichgives£5,000)’. remainder beingmadeupbytheSocietyforPromotionofIncrease where £8,000hasbeenraised,thatofNottsraised£2,000,Salop£2,500,the in June1879‘about£20,000hasbeenraised,chiefl than theSuffraganBishopformeetingtheirtargets.AsTrollopetoldWordsworth the required£70,000.Unfortunately,differentcountiesshowedlessenthusiasm contribute £16,000tothebishopricfund,andShropshire£6000,therebyproducing posed thatLincolnshire,Nottinghamshire,Derbyshire,andStaffordshireshouldeach LPL, TaitPapers253,f.298. The Times Austin, to theHomeSecretary,2Feb.1878. Lichfi Derby Mercury LPL, TaitPapers253,f.298; several othersbeforetheactwaspassed,wereallgivenonsamecondition. With thepassingof1878ActinitiativewasseizedonceagainbyArchdeacon The majorproblemwasthelackofsubstantialindividual contributionstothe Southwell expressly.Thefi several subscriptionsonthatcondition.Thefi considered asabsolutelysettled,secretaryoftheDerbyshireCommitteehereceived see. BeforetheBillwasintroducedintoParliament,andwhenquestioncouldnotbe money hadbeengivenontheexpressconditionthatSouthwellshouldbeseatof cult. Contributionstothe bishopricfundfromDerbyshireweregiven‘with eld JointRecordOffi 60 Stage orTwo , 17Mar.,30June1880,9Jan.1884. , 21Oct.1885. 62 , 166. andthegreatmajorityofcontributionswereverymuch smaller. ce (LJRO),B/A/26/3/1, ff.48–9,54;TNA,HO45/9539/51214G,BishopofLichfi Derby Mercury rst £100,thefi THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS eld contributingtothefundingprocess.Hepro- , 2Apr.1879. rst £50,thefi eld inOctober1879thatthejoint bishopric 57 AcommitteesetupinShropshiretoraise rst £500[afterwardstrebled]wasgivenfor rst £20,thefi y fromtheCountyofLincoln rst £10,followedby 59 Meantime 58 61 but eld 77 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham nothing shortofascandal: come from270SundaySchoolteachers,scholars,andothersinSutton-in-Ashfi evangelical churches,notablyHolyTrinity,ignoredtheappeal.Tenguineashad with highchurchleanings—fromwhich£616s9dhadbeengiven.Thewealthy ham churchtocontributewasStJohntheBaptist,Leenside—signifi from Newarkparishchurch,whichcontributed£3212s4d,whiletheonlyNotting- tions. Sixty-fourchurcheshadmadecollectionstotalling£2611s7d.Thelargestwas als abletoaffordlessthan£1.InNottinghamshire,afewwereanonymouscontribu- gave anaddressonthesametheme, with someoftheobjectionswhichhavebeenurgedagainstit’.TheBishopLichfi 1882’. Asaresult,paperwasreadonthesubjectatOctoberconference‘dealing of thedivisiondiocesebebroughtprominentlybeforeChurchCongress Lichfi enthusiasm wanedagain. which sermonswerepreachedbythebishopsofLincolnandLichfi at Southwell‘inconnectionwiththeproposednewBishopricofSouthwell’, In anefforttodrumupsupport,inSeptember1880specialserviceswereheld 66 65 64 63 hard togatherwastheproposedcathedral.Awriterin were rakedoveronceagain,anditbecameclearthatonereasonwhyfundsso called ameetingattheMansionHouseforFriday,1June1883.Inadvanceembers hands intheirpocketsandtakeout£1,000each’.Hecontinued: plea to‘menofthegreatestsubstance,whocouldwithfacilityputtheir argued that 78 Church Quart.Rev. LPL, BensonPapers,297,f.298. Offi LJRO, B/A/25/3/1,f.110;B/A/26/1/1/1, 26Oct.1882. hitaiyi en itntysta agtaddseadd[ .]Southwellhasin fact . Christianity isbeingdistinctly set atnaughtanddisregarded[. personally pleasantforthebishop,andlawofselfsacrifi In thisproposedschemethegoodofchurchisbeing sacrifi A correspondenttoldthe cathedral dimensions,withotherbuildingssuitableforachapter. mistake. Itisselectedfromthemerefactthattherea noblecollegiatechurchof of thenewbishopricwhichistoembracecountyNottingham asanunfortunate and residence.Inthislightwecannotbutregardtheselection ofSouthwellastheseat The countytown,withbutfewexceptions,shouldbemadethe cityofthebishop’stitle By early1883justover£40,000hadbeenraised,muchofitfromprivateindividu- indeed. do notclaimtheinestimableprivilegeofdoinggood,knowingtimeisveryshort to berichtowardsGodandthesalvationofsouls?Iamsorrythatmeninhighstations You havemanufacturingandindustrialwealth,butwhatwasthiswealthgivenfor Little interestwasbeingshowninthewesternsideofnewdiocese,so In abidtocompletethefundraisingforSouthwell,LordMayorofLondon cial Year-Bookofthe Church ofEngland eld DiocesanCouncilagreedatitsmeetingon31January1882that‘thesubject JOHN BECKETT 64 (Apr./July 1883),177. Nottingham Journal 63 (1883),307. andtheBishopofLincolnmadeanimpassioned thattheselectionofSouthwellwas Church QuarterlyReview ce whichisthe spiritof 66 ced tomakethings cantly achurch ed Thereafter eld. eld. eld 65

Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham 70 69 68 67 Southwell diocesecouldbefounded. astical Commission.Theyhadcometoreportthatthe fundingwascompleteand for ameetingchairedbytheArchbishopofCanterbury attheoffi close toaconclusion, several monthslater,butbyDecember1883thelong-running sagaappearedtobe meeting, leavingadefi restarted thestalledfundingprocess.Ninepledgesof£1000 eachweremadeatthe hardly seemedthemomenttorepeatthem. Nottingham aswellofSouthwell’. expressed ahopethatthetimewouldcomewhentherebebishopof large andinfl would, however,askhimifhewasnotveryinconsistentincomingbeforethis .]They . deny thatNottinghamhadaverystrongclaimforbishopric(hear,hear)[. Nottingham andDerbyhadbothofthemverystrongclaims’.Indeed,he‘couldnot in theKingdom’, perfect placeforanepiscopalresidencethatcouldbeimagined’. By contrast,hecontinued,‘Southwellwassimplythemostbeautifuland eventually benecessary: no provisionhadbeenmadeforoneatSouthwell,heclearlythoughtwould ham disadvantageous.AtTruro,Bensonhadestablishedachapter,and,although a greattown’.Asfi Bishop reallytosupervisethewholediocese,andnotbemerelyasuperiorrectorin .]ItwasjustsofarfromNottinghamastoenablethe . ing, ‘wasjusttherightsize[. Maltby, repeatedthestandarddefenceofSouthwell.‘Thetown’,hetoldgather- 1883. ArchbishopBenson,speakingfromnotespreparedforhimbyArchdeacon Nottingham Daily Express Taken fromreportsinthe tion’, Guardian Nottingham Journal which theChurchoughttoperform. and thisSouthwellBishopricschemeshowshowinsensibleitspromotersaretotheduties established churchhasbeenlosinggroundinthiscountyandespeciallythelargetowns, of moneyhasrecentlybeenspentwithoutanyrealadvantagetothecommunity.The nothing torecommenditbutitsMinster,intherestorationofwhichanenormoussum Whatever Wordsworth’sdoubts,themeetinghad required effectbecauseit Benson’s certaintywascounteredbyWordsworth’svacillation:‘everygreattown themselves intobelievingthatbuildingswerenotnecessary.Theymusthavethem. .]Letnoonedelude . the wholeofsumrequiredforendowmentsee[. To dosotheywouldhavetobuythegroundbyinch,andcostswallowup Mary’s, theycouldnotgetthenecessarybuildingsinplacewherewerewanted. consider whatNottinghamwas.WiththeenormouswarehousesthatclusteredaroundSt It hadbeenurgedthattheseeshouldbeatNottingham;buthewouldaskthemto The SouthwellquestiondominateddiscussionsattheMansionHouseon1June Jnl Eccl.Hist. , 6June1883;P.S.Morrish,‘Parish-Church Cathedrals,1836–1931:SomeProblemsandtheirSolu- unilmeigadpedn o h e ob tSuhel[ .][He] . uential meetingandpleadingfortheseetobeatSouthwell[. , 49(1998),449. , 23May1883. rm supporterofthetrappingsacathedral,hefoundNotting- 70 , 4,21Dec.1883. cit onthefundof£19,000.Subscriptionswerestillcomingin Guardian Guardian andon17January1884adeputationarrivedbyappointment THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS , 6June1883,and reportedhimassaying,‘oughttohaveitsbishop. 67 69 Hehadsaidallthesethingsbefore,butthis Nottingham Journal , 2June1883. 68

ces oftheEcclesi- 79 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham perfect stranger’tohisdiocese,with‘littleexperienceofpurelypastoralwork’. pastoral ordiocesanchurchexperiencetospeakof:ashefreelyadmitted,was‘a bishop (Figure2). cathedral wasnotreopenedforpublicworshipuntil2February1888. and thenimmediatelyclosedagain.Thechoirwasrefi tion’. .]whichwerelistenedtowithmuchgratifi . and rangforthmanymerrypeals[. with thefi the goodnewsarrivedinSouthwell‘theringersofgrandpealbellsconnected 1878 legislation,wastoberepresentedbythebishop’sresidence. total incometopped£3000.Theother£500,tomakeupthe£3500requiredunder the £500ayeartransferredfromseeofLincoln,and£300Lichfi left toLincolnshire,Staffordshire,andShropshire. to haveasingledioceseratherthanoneeachmeantthatmuchofthefundraisingwas mented rathertartlythatill-feelinginNottinghamshireandDerbyshireabouthaving bitterly inherbiographyofhim, area fordioceses.‘SouthwellDiocese’,ashiswifeLadyLauralaterrecalledrather as toreopentheearlierdebatewhethercountieswereappropriategeographical manageable, andongoinghostilitybetweenNottinghamshireDerbyshirewassuch than toecclesiasticalandspiritualconsiderations.Itprovedbetoolarge He wasfacedwithtryingtomakesomethingofadiocese appointed notforhisspiritualitybutexperienceofrunninganorganization. Edward Benson,thefi ing ofthebishopricwasannouncedin Within afewdaystherestofdocumentationhadbeencompleted,andfound- announcement thattheletterspatenttofoundnewbishoprichadbeensealed. of thedioceseLichfi from Lincolnshire,£10,800Nottinghamshire,andtherestvariousparts 76 75 74 73 72 71 80 137–54. 1884’, inJohnBeckett(ed.), John Beckett,‘EdwardTrollope,theArchbishop’sPalace,andFounding oftheDioceseSouthwellin Ridding, Ridding, Walker (eds.), John Beckett,‘DrGeorgeRidding, First BishopofSouthwell,1884–1904’,inStanleyChapmanandDerek Nottingham Journal The Times and theDioceseofSouthwell:AStudy intheNationalchurchIdeal’, Truth. no equipmentsofChapterstaff,orendowment,diocesan funds.Itwasnakedas its populationwasnearlydoublethatofthelatter.Unlike ancientdioceses,ithad a hundredmorethanthoseofLincoln.Inacreageitexceeded the formerby100,000,and Dr GeorgeRidding,headmasterofWinchesterCollege,wasappointedasthefi See containedtwenty-threemorebenefi was createdregardlessofallprecedents,unwieldyinsizeand population.Thedaughter The commissionersweresatisfi In overallterms,about£15,000wascontributedby‘churchmenatlarge’,£16,200 74 JOHN BECKETT Thepatched-upminsterwasopenedlongenoughtobecreatedacathedral, 76 George Ridding George Ridding ne oldminster,nowsosoontobecomeacathedral,ascendedthebelfry, , 18Jan.,6Feb.1884;CERO,fi Minster People , 19Jan.1884. Although hehadbeenapriestfortwenty-eightyears,no , 160. , 160. rst bishopofTruro,hewasaformerpublicschoolheadmaster eld. LadyLauraRidding,thefi Nottinghamshire Past:EssaysinHonourofAdrianHenstock (SouthwellLocalHistorySociety,2009), 101–14;JeremyMorris,‘GeorgeRidding ed, andon18January1884 le 47749,pt2/3,5; ces thanthoseoftheparentSeeLichfi London Gazette Church ofEnglandYearBook 71 Whentothissumwereadded Jnl Eccl.Hist. rst bishop’swife,latercom- tted in1886–87, butthe that owed more to political that owedmoretopolitical on5February. The Times , 61(2010),125–34. 72 (Nottingham, 2003), (1885),256. carriedan eld, and eld, 73 eld, the eld, When 75 Like ca- rst rst Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham 79 78 77 made 176parishvisits. he presidedorpreachedat200services,attended74 meetings andfunctions, was onamainline. taking upresidenceatThurgarton,threemilessouthof thetown,largelybecauseit centre inthediocesewithoutbeingmidstof people’. he added,‘isinavillage.Itisquestionwhether,with allitsbeauty,itcanbea parish churchinasmallvillageisanycontributiontothediocese’.‘TheCathedral’, constituting aCathedral,itisworthwhiletoconsiderwhethermakingoutof Nor didthelocationofcathedralhelp.‘Itseemstome’,wroteRidding,‘that,in fi 1888 hewasillandhadtotake timeoff.Hepetitionedforasuffraganattheearliest his enthronementatSouthwell. ment asbishopwastopreachatEvensonginStMary’s, Nottingham,thedayafter would havepreferredtheseetobeinNottingham.Poignantly, hisfi after alltheeffortexpendedonSouthwell,fi of thenewdioceseSouthwell,1884–1904. gure urgency withwhichthebishopandhis wifeapproachedthetask. Austin, Nottingham Journal Ibid., 164. Ridding threwhimselfintothetaskofmakingnewdiocese work.In1887alone DrGeorgeRidding,headmasterofWinchesterCollege1867–84,andfi 2 Stage orTwo , 30May1884. , 169;HampshireRecordOffi 79 Theworkloadwasmorethanhecouldhandleand in THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS 78 HeresistedlocalpressuretoliveinSouthwell, ce, 9M68,LadyLauraRidding’sDiaries,giveasenseofthe rst bishopmade itquiteclearthathe 77 Itwasironicthat, rst offi cial engage- rst bishop rst 81 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham and prejudiceswhichcountiescouldstillevoke’. bishop TaitnorCrosshadappreciatedwhatSouthwellbestexemplifi the duplicationofeffortthisinvolved.AsPeterMorrishhasobserved,‘neitherarch- their owncommittees,andhecomplainedtohisdiocesanconferencein1891about diocese. Ridding,despitehisbestefforts,foundthatthetwocountiesdemanded received acitycharterrefl likely toneedrevisitingatsomepoint.Thetimecame in1889whenBirmingham ham andtheBlackCountrysplitbetweenLichfi sion in1876todroptheBirmingham-Coventrydiocesan proposal,leavingBirming- seriously denythatBirminghamoughtnottobeadiocese initsownright.Thedeci- demonstrated theproblemssurroundingunwieldycounty dioceses,noonecould were thebasisofdiocesesDerbyandLeicester. But,whileSouthwellhad was reorganizedalongcountylinesin1913andaftertheFirstWorldWarcounties county dioceseswouldbenefi would makeiteasiertosolicitlaysupport.BishopCarpenterin1908arguedthat diocese shouldbetherulewheneveramulti-countywasdivided,becausethat sidered tobethenormsubsequently.BishopPercevalofOxfordarguedthatcounty suggested formingadioceseoutofRutland—butsingle-countydioceseswerecon- a capacitytoevokefi that DerbyshireandNottinghamshirewouldneverworktogether. Paul’s Cathedral1877–1911andanativeofNottingham,wassureasearly1877 approach simplydidnotwork.CanonRobertGregory,canonresidentiaryofSt have beenfarbettertocreatetwodiocesesfromthebeginning—multi-county appointment ofasuffragan.Indoingso,hemadeitclearthatinhisviewwould in 1889. possible opportunity,andBishopEdwardAshWerewasappointedofDerby 85 84 83 82 81 80 delay wasgeography,notablytheproposaltobaseadiocese onacityratherthan Yet itwasnotuntil1905thatthediocesesetup,and partofthereasonfor position strengthenedwiththeformationin1888ofcountycouncils. success. putting NottinghamshireandDerbyshiretogethertoformadiocesehadnotbeen the lateryearsofnineteenthcentury,partlybecauseitwaswidelyrecognizedthat larly populousdistrictssuchasLancashireandYorkshire.Theideagatheredpacein a ChurchCongressin1886hespokefavourofcountydioceses,exceptparticu- purposes, was talkingasearly1889ofdividingDerbyshireandNottinghamshirefordiocesan a dioceseshouldbeof300,000–500,000people—hisownwasabout700,000.Ridding 82 Ibid., 293. Ibid., 291,293. Morrish, ‘CountyandUrbanDioceses’, 290. Ibid., 169. Austin, Beckett, ‘GeorgeRidding’,101–14;Morris, 136–7. The argumentforcountydiocesescouldnotbetakentoextremes—noone The culturalaffi Ridding’s experiencemadehimafi JOHN BECKETT 81 Stage orTwo 80 Riddingarguedthatsingle-countydioceseswerethebestsolution,and 82

andhepetitionedLordSalisbury,thePrimeMinister,requesting , 163–86. nity ofcountiesremainedaforceinVictorianEngland,retaining erce localloyaltieswhichcrippledtheorganizationof ecting itsimportanceasamajorEnglishindustrial town. t from thehistoricalcontinuityofsecularunit—a rm supporterofsingle-countydioceses.At 84 eld andWorcester,alwayslooked 83

ed —thepride 85 EastAnglia Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Departments of Medieval and Modern History, University of Birmingham previously. of time,anditcamein1927,althoughhadbeenonthecardsforsomeyears of thedioceseinrespecttopopulationandindustry.Divorcewasonlyamatter and littledesiretoworktogether,acathedralwhichwasclearlynotatthecentre 1884 wasacompromiseinvolvingasitdidtwoarchdeaconrieswithlittleincommon they werenotthelargesttownsintheirnewdiocese.Themidlanddiocese and Wakefi tant towns,andevenTrurowasbasedonthecountycapitalinCornwall.BothRipon than avillage.Manchester,Liverpool,andNewcastlehadallbeenfoundedinimpor- the cathedral.Unfortunately,SouthwellMinsterwasinaplacewhichlittlemore Derbyshire churchmenwouldacceptthetwo-countydioceseonlyifSouthwellwas through Parliament,whilethearchitecturewasarunningwoundbecause Cross, whoregardedfourasthemaximumnumberofbishopricshecouldsteer was partlyforceduponthenewbishopbypoliticalexpediencyonpartofR.A. The debateoverSouthwellwasaboutgeographyandarchitecture. between selectingready-madecathedrals,orpromotingadequateparishchurches. here thattheChurchfounditselfcaughtbetweencountyandurbandioceses, seriously, thetheoreticaldebatehadtobereconfi the Conservativesreturnedtopowerin1874andR.A.Crosstookupmatter parliament wasunenthusiasticaboutpassingthenecessarylegislation,butonce re-think theboundariesofitsdioceses.Itdidsoinitiallyinanenvironmentwhich followed byBradford,Sheffi areas ofcountrysidearoundthemincluded,butnotnecessarilywholecounties.Itwas county. Herewasanothernewprinciple,thatsometownsmightbediocesanseeswith 87 86 nottingham.ac.uk Nottingham, UniversityPark,Nottingham Correspondence to:ProfessorJohnBeckett,Department ofHistory,University Notes oncontributor Peter Morrishforreadingandcommentingonanearlier draft. I amgratefultoWendyBatemanforsomehelpwithresearch forthispaper,andto Acknowledgements seriously offendedbythechoiceofStMartin’sforpromotiontocathedral. and theruraldeaneryofHandsworth.Fortunately,nooneseemstohavebeen and end.IntheenditwasagreedthatshouldbearchdeaconryofBirmingham case ofBirmingham,particularlyoverwherethedioceseshouldbedeemedtobegin Morrish, ‘Birmingham’,82–3. Southwell DiocesanMagazine By themid-nineteenthcentury,ChurchofEnglandrecognizedneedto 86 eld werefarlargerthanSouthwellwhentheirseescreated,evenif Meantimesomeofthesamedebateshadbeenfurtherrehearsedin , xxxix eld, Guildford,Blackburn,andPortsmouth. THE VICTORIANCHURCHOFENGLANDINMIDLANDS (1926),126; The Times ng7 2rd , 14May1923. gured inpracticalterms,anditwas , UK.Email:john.beckett@ 87 83