Archive of the Month03 May 23

The process of building glebe houses & churches – captured in documentation held in Diocesan Registry D6 material.

By Dr Michael O’Neill

The Diocesan Collection D6 for Dublin, Glendalough and Kildare was mentioned in last month’s archive of the month particularly in relation to architectural drawings of churches and glebe houses. These are wonderful additions to the drawings in the Portfolio collections arranged by diocese and the survey drawings by Pain and Welland.

As a Diocesan Collection (organised in boxes by parish) this contains much more material than simply drawings and rather reflects the interaction between parish and diocesan court over the period covered by the surviving material.

An interesting aspect of the surviving diocesan court material is the light it shines on the procedure of building or repairing/extending a glebe house, how a clergyman recovered some of the costs of the build of a new glebe house from his successor, and the process of dealing with dilapidations (identifying and costing repairs). Similarly, there was a process for building or extending a church or remodelling a church interior which if anything entailed an even more complex set of quasi–legal procedures or steps.

This documentary material was also scanned and catalogued and is available to view on the architectural drawings website here. 

The background to this diocesan court material can best be approached by reading or perhaps scanning through Ed. Bullingbrooke, Ecclesiastical Law; or, the Statutes, Constitutions, Canons, Rubricks, and Articles of the Church of Ireland (Dublin, 2 vols, 1770), Ch. 9 on parochial churches and chapels and Ch. 30 on possessions and revenues of the clergy. A shorter text is Edward A. Stopford, A Hand–Book of Ecclesiastical Law and Duty for the use of The Irish Clergy (Dublin, 1861), Ch. 12 building and improving and Ch. 28 churches. Stopford’s book can be read online.

GLEBE HOUSES
The main form of communication between a clergyman planning to build a glebe house and the diocesan court was by using a document called a memorial. This is a document outlining a statement of facts, especially as the basis of a petition, in this case to request permission to build a glebe house. It is clear from the memorials held in the diocesan collections that a memorial signalled quite an advanced state in the process of building as the clergyman (or perhaps the bishop on his behalf) had already engaged with the Board of First Fruits to secure a loan and gift of monies to build.
Stopford, mentioned above, provided an outline of a Memorial to build and what it should contain:

MEMORIAL TO BUILD

To the Most [or Right] Reverend Father in God, &c.

The humble memorial of A.B, Rector, &c., of in your lordship’s diocese of sheweth that there is no [or, no fit] glebe house on memorialist’s benefice of , and that there is a suitable glebe whereon to build a house of residence (which describe, and the exact site proposed); and that your memorialist proposes to build thereon a house and offices, the house to be feet in length, feet in breadth, and feet in height to the eve course; and the walls to be inches in thickness, and said house is to contain stories, including the basement storey (if there be one); and . . . (here give a further description of the plan, as to what rooms will be on each floor, &c.); and the principal range of offices to be . . . (here give similar particulars and descriptions) and . . . (here give similar particulars and description of any detached office, gatehouse &c.); and to erect . . . (here state anything proposed to be done, such as erecting a pump, water–closet, &c.); and your memorialist proposes to expend on the aforesaid building and works, a sum of money not greater than ; and that the clear yearly income of your memorialist’s benefice of is according to the schedule annexed. (State also to what extent the next incumbent may be liable, under the existing charges on the benefice.) And your memorialist proposes to execute the aforesaid works by charge on the benefice, and prays your Lordship to approve this memorial, and to signify your Lordship’s approval thereon.

(Signature)

(Date) 

It should be noted that Stopford is writing in the period of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (after 1833) rather than that of the Board of First Fruits.

At Clonmethan, Co. Dublin the clergyman Thomas Radcliff’s memorial to the Diocesan Court in 1814 planned to build a large glebe house and ancillary buildings on his glebe land expending more than the considerable loan of £1,350 from the Board of First Fruits. The Memorial is reproduced below:

The house to be two storeys over basement, 43 by 34 feet and 32 feet high with a porch 14 by 5 feet and 19 feet high. A kitchen yard 15 feet by 34 feet with stabling for 6 horses at the rear to be 40 feet by 15 feet wide and 8 feet high and a large stable yard behind some 30 feet long. This to be enclosed by a barn, cart house and cow house. Also an entrance gate and labourer’s house serving as a gate lodge. A detailed and itemised costing came to £1,990 and Radcliff proposed to charge his successor the difference between the loan amount and the full expenditure.

Once built it was important for the clergyman to request a Certificate of Valuation from the Bishop or Diocesan Court. This request was done again by means of a Memorial. This in effect requested the bishop to order a Commission of suitably qualified personnel to view and value the work done and arrive at a true cost of the expenditure. This would not only satisfy the Board of First Fruits that the money was properly spent but was also the basis for charges against his successor in the incumbency.

The notion that a clergyman could claim some of the cost of building a glebe house from his successor went back to legislation of 1698–9 which, in order to encourage clergymen to build houses on their glebe lands (where the former houses had been frequently destroyed in the course of the seventeenth century), ‘ecclesiastical persons building or making necessary improvements on church lands shall have from his successor two thirds (necessary annual repairs excepted). The successor paying two thirds would then have half the value outlaid recovered from his successor’ (Bullingbrooke, p. 737 & p.744). Legislation in 1723–4 allowed the builder to recoup three–quarters of his outlay. If a clergyman died, his estate could sue for the amount owed.

Hence then the importance of having new builds and additions and repairs properly valued and certified and a certificate of valuation laid up in the Diocesan Registry for future use.
A new incumbent faced with the prospect of paying his predecessor (or his predecessor’s estate) some large proportion of the initial build or subsequent repairs would resort in the first instance to evaluating repairs necessary to the glebe house and ancillary buildings and have this sum set against the notional value owed to his predecessor. Such a strategy involved the newly appointed clergyman requesting a memorial for a commission of dilapidation. Again Stopford provided an outline example:

MEMORIAL FOR A COMMISSION OF DILAPIDATION

. . . . .  Sheweth that your memorialist is lately appointed to the     of       in your Lordship’s diocese of      , and that there is a house of residence belonging to the same, and that delay and dilapidations exist in the same (give a brief and general statement of decay and dilapidation); and memorialist prays your Lordship to issue a commission to inquire into the foregoing.

(Signature)   (Date)

At Kilsallaghan in Co. Dublin the clergyman John Gregg initiated a Memorial for a committee to ascertain dilapidations at the glebe house in 1828. The commissioners charged with valuing the dilapidations was composed of two clergymen and the architect John Semple Snr.

Stopford discussed the problem with commissions for dilapidations (prior to 14 & 15 Vic. C. 73) (1850–52):

‘The previous law involved a much higher expenditure on the repairs of glebe–houses than on the repair of any other houses: for, by law, roofs, floors, &c, in a glebe house, had to be repeatedly torn down at great expense, and then patched up again, twenty or thirty years before any prudent man would repair the same in his own house.

The operation of the old law, in forcing repair on the first appearance of decay, made it cheaper in many cases for a clergyman to pay rent for a house than to have a glebe–house rent free. This was a severe infliction on the clergy as a body; and stat. 14 & 15 Vic. C. 73, did seem well calculated to correct it. But… effect to throw the burden of repair, not on the person who enjoyed the house and income during the period of decay, but on the successor who inherits it in ruin….’

He also provided an insight into the work required to report on and cost dilapidations:

it is a serious mistake to have an unskilled builder or tradesman; and it is most desirable that he should be a person accustomed to dilapidation business. A very good class of men are now to be got for the purpose. The usual charge is a guinea per day and expenses. The business should not be hurried over. A small house may be well examined in five or six days, and it may take six weeks for a very large house.

Memorials relating to glebe houses in the D6 collection include those for Clondalkin 1864, Finglas 1826, Kilternan 1862, Lusk 1835, Newcastle Lyons 1727, Newcastle Lyons 1814, Rathcoole 1783, St Ann Dublin 1868, Swords 1785, Tallaght 1861, Taney, 1869, Athy 1807, Ballintemple 1823, Delgany 1848, Derralossory 1839, Dunganstown 1793, Dunlavin 1812, Fontstown 1826, Hollywood 1756, Inch 1783, Inch 1852, Kilcullen 1847, Esker 1822, Maynooth 1856, Naraghmore 1815, Newcastle 1813, Rathdrum 1793, Rathmore 1821, Rathmore 1833, Ballycommon 1809, Killeighy 1816, Ballynefagh 1828, Ballysax 1825, Clane 1838, Coolbanagher 1785, Feighcullen 1824, Geashill 1751, Kill 1868, Kilmaoge 1783, Lackagh 1848, Monasterevan 1869, Rathangan 1805, Thomastown 1825. 

CHURCHES
Stopford also gives a very useful summary of the relationship between ecclesiastical law and the church building and its contents:

The fabric of the church, its ornaments, furniture, fittings, &c., are under the jurisdiction of the bishop; and, therefore, if the incumbent or parishioners wish to make any change in pulpit, seats, or other fittings, &c., they must, in the first instance, apply to the bishop for direction and permission. It is a legal offence to make any alterations in such matters without permission of the bishop legally obtained.

A faculty to make the alterations must be obtained from the Bishop’s court; and any parishioner will be heard by the Court in opposition to the granting of such faculty.

Stat. 23 and 24 Vict. c.150, sec. 11, (1859–1861) provides that (in addition to the faculty) ‘It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to alter the form or structure of any parochial church or chapel in Ireland, or of any other church or chapel which has been or shall be hereafter built or maintained by or out of the funds vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland; or to remove, take down, destroy, or alter the position of the reading–desk, pulpit, or pewing of any such church or chapel as aforesaid, or the walls or fences of any churchyard belonging thereto, without the previous consent in writing of the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners and of the bishop of the diocese in which such church or chapel is or shall be situate, or his commissary’.

The following is extracted from a guidance document issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland c. 1860:

‘Instructions for Procuring a Faculty for Repewing or other Alterations in Churches,
To be forwarded to the Incumbent with the Specifications and Tracings of Plans conditionally approved by the Board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
By the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland
Ordered, that upon all applications to the Board for the Repewing or New Pewing of Parish Churches or Chapels of Ease, a Plan for such Repewing or New Pewing shall be submitted by the Architect for the consideration of the Board, and not finally adopted by them until sanctioned, approved of, and duly confirmed by the Ordinary of the Diocese, and until an authentic act of confirmation or a proper Faculty or Licence satisfactory to the Board, under the seal of the Consistorial Court of the Diocese in which the said Church or Chapel is situate, authorising the erection of such works according to such Plan, shall be notified and submitted in due form to the Board. And it is further Ordered, that when any such application shall be made, as aforesaid, a copy of this Order, with the Plan of the Architect, shall be sent to the Incumbent or Officiating Minister making such an application, in order that the necessary Confirmation, Faculty, or Licence may be obtained, as required by this Order.’

‘Instructions for Procuring a Faculty for Repewing or Altering Churches
Obtain the consent of as many of the Parishioners as conveniently can be procured to the proposed alterations. This may be done, according to the discretion of the Incumbent, either by calling a Meeting in the nature of a Vestry, or by any other more convenient means, such as procuring their signature to a Consent at foot of the paper, stating the alterations, or otherwise.

When the consent of such Parishioners is obtained, present a Memorial to the Ordinary praying for his approval of the proposed Alterations, accompanying it with the Plan and Specification conditionally approved by the Board, and stating the concurrence of the Parishioners, and how obtained.

If the Ordinary gives his approbation (in writing on the tracings sent herewith), let the Memorial, the Plan, and Specifications, the Consent of the Parishioners, with a Petition for a Faculty, be deposited with the Registrar of the Diocese, who will thereupon issue the proper citation; and if no Parishioner shall appear to oppose, or his opposition shall be overruled by the Court, the Faculty will then be prepared by the Registrar, under the seal of the Consistorial Court, to which the Duplicate tracing or copy of the Plan furnished by the Office should be annexed. The other copy should be preserved in the Registry. The Faculty is then to be lodged with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Forms of the said Petition, Citation, and Faculty are herewith furnished. 

Towards the expense of the Faculty, however obtained, the Commissioners will allow a sum of two guineas.’

The number of pro–forma documents produced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners must indicate how active the Commissioners were in the period 1834–1871 and a demand for building, re–building and internal alterations that a whole suite of documentation was put in place to presumably weed out the less than committed or convinced, or where there was strong and implacable opposition to change.

The original citation against all opposers parchment document in advance of providing a faculty often included an architectural drawing of the changes proposed on wax impregnated tracing paper provided by the architects to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Such a document would withstand a fair amount of wear and tare and are generally in very good condition.

This series of documentation for a great number of churches is an important part of understanding their architectural and internal evolution in the period leading up to Disestablishment.

Conclusion 

The churches for which faculties were requested and for which there is documentation in the D6 collection include Booterstown, Clonsilla, Castleknock, Clontarf, Coolock, Finglas, Grangegorman, Holmpatrick, Malahide, Monkstown, Rathcoole, Rathmichael, St Ann’s, St Andrew’s, St Audoen’s, St Bridget, St Doulagh, St George’s, St James, Saint Jude, St Nicholas Without, Irishtown, St Peter, St Stephen, St Thomas, Stillorgan, Whitechurch, (Glendalough:) Arklow, Ballintemple, Castlemacadam, Celbridge, Delgany, Lucan, Newcastle, Rathdrum, Timolin, (Kildare:) Kinneagh, Ballysonnan, Carnalway, Feighcullen, Lackagh, Lea, Monasterevan, Morristownbiller, Naas, Portarlington, Killishee.

The drawings and the accompanying documentation relating to memorials for building glebe houses and faculty related material for building and altering churches taken together broaden our understanding of the frenetic building period of the early to mid–nineteenth century building campaigns of the Church of Ireland.

About the author:

Dr Michael O’Neill is an architectural historian and digital archivist. He has digitised and web–published the extensive architectural drawing collections in the RCB Library and is the author of the recently–published An Architectural History of the Church of Ireland which can be purchased here.