Are the historic bishops' palaces of the church of england fit for purpose

Are the historic bishops’ palaces of the Church of England fit for purpose in the twenty-first century?

Lisa McIntyre Architectural Association Graduate Diploma - Building Conservation 27 April 2012

Are the historic bishops’ palaces of the Church of England fit for purpose in the twenty-first century?

Lisa McIntyre Architectural Association Graduate Diploma - Building Conservation 27 April 2012

CONTENTS 1.

2.

2.1 2.2

Illustration Credits Acknowledgements INTRODUCTION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT History of the Church Historical Development of Bishops’ Houses

2 4 6 8 8 12

3.

3.1

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY CONTEXT The Church of England Today

36 36

Conservation Context

44

3.2 4.

4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 5.

6.

7.

Locations Functions Form and Design Building Trends Ownership of Bishops’ Palaces

The Church’s General Position The Church Commissioners The Bishops Bishops’ Houses Disused Houses Statutory Protection Conservation Concerns

12 14 17 26 33

36 37 37 38 40 44 46

FIT FOR PURPOSE? The Church Commissioners’ Legislation

48 49

The Church Commissioners’ Guidance

51

Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943 ‘Resourcing Bishops’ and ‘Resourcing Archbishops’ ‘The Strategic Review of See Houses’

The Church Commissioners’ Practice – Case Studies Diocese of London Diocese of Bath and Wells Diocese of Worcester Dioceses of Carlisle and Durham

Assessment of the Church Commissioners’ Guidance and Practice CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A - Gazetteer of Current See Houses Appendix B - Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943 Appendix C - Select List Descriptions Case Study 1: Diocese of London Case Study 2: Diocese of Bath and Wells Case Study 3: Diocese of Worcester Case Study 4a: Diocese of Carlisle Case Study 4b: Diocese of Durham

49

51 52

57

57 64 69 74

78 82 85 90 90 95 100 100 103 107 108 109

1

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS Cover: Fig. 1:

p.4

Fig. 2: Fig. 3: Fig. 4: Fig. 5: Fig. 6:

p.13 p.14 p.15 p.17 p.18

Fig. 7: Fig. 8:

p.19 p.19

Fig. 9:

p.20

Fig. 10: Fig. 11: Fig. 12: Fig. 13: Fig. 14: Fig. 15: Fig. 16: Fig. 17: Fig. 18: Fig. 19: Fig. 20: Fig. 21:

p.21 p.21 p.22 p.22 p.23 p.23 p.24 p.24 p.25 p.26 p.27 p.27

Fig. 22: p.28 Fig. 23: Fig. 24: Fig. 25: Fig. 26: Fig. 27:

p.29 p.31 p.31 p.32 p.32

Fig. 28: p.32 Fig. 29: Fig. 30: Fig. 31: Fig. 32: Fig. 33: Fig. 34:

p.33 p.39 p.40 p.41 p.42 p.42

Fig. 35: p.43 Fig. 36: p.57 Fig. 37: p.58

Vaulted entrance at Fulham Palace, boss detail (author’s own, April 2012) Hugh Percy, Bishop of Carlisle (1827-1856), in his library at Rose Castle (Robert Thorburn, The Trustees of the British Museum: Prints & Drawings) Distribution of medieval manor houses (Payne, 2003) Bishopthorpe Palace, sited by the River Ouse (Spooner in Rait, 1911) The bakehouse at Bishop’s Waltham Castle (Keevill, 2000) Rose Castle, Cumbria (S. and N. Buck, 1739, reproduced in Rait, 2011) Hereford Palace’s two-storey chapel (Society of Antiquaries, reproduced in Thompson, 1996) Bishop of Ely’s London chapel (author’s own, April 2012) The aisled hall at Auckland Castle, now converted to a chapel (Alan Baxter & Associates, 2011) The vaulted undercroft of the hall at Salisbury Bishop’s Palace (Alan Baxter & Associates, 2009) Plan of Wells Palace (Parker, 1866) Plan of Salisbury Palace (Alan Baxter & Associates, 2009) Plan of the ruins of Wolvesey Castle (Wareham, 2000) Plan of the ruins of Lincoln Palace (Faulkner, reproduced in Thompson, 1996) Plan of Hatfield Palace (Shaw in Thompson, 1996) Plan of Fulham Palace (Fulham Palace, photo by author) Durham Castle’s castellations (Spooner in Rait, 1911) The moat at Wells Bishop’s Palace (author’s own, October 2011) 1610 map of Co. Durham (Speed, reproduced in Alan Baxter & Associates, 2011) Fulham Palace’s walled garden (author’s own, April 2012) Maidstone Palace (author’s own, March 2011) Knole Palace (Frederick Cornwallis, The Trustees of the British Museum: Prints & Drawings) The surviving tower of Otford Palace (Otford and District Historical Society website) The distribution of manor houses prior to and after the Reformation (Heal, 1980) Wolvesey Palace, built alongside the ruins of Wolvesey Castle (Wareham, 2000) Worcester Palace’s eighteenth-century facade (author’s own, April 2012) Barrington’s drawing room at Salisbury Palace (Ptolemy Dean Architects, 2010) The picturesque ruins of Burnell’s hall at Wells Palace (author’s own, October 2011) The interior of Butterfield’s chapel at Fulham Palace (original source unknown, acquired at Fulham Palace, 2011) Ripon Bishop’s Palace (Rait, 1911) Lambeth Palace (Venables, 1895) Farnham Castle in the eighteenth century (Wareham, 2000) The timeline on the Farnham Castle website (Farnham Castle website) An aerial view of Ely Bishop’s Palace (GSS Architecture, 2011) Salisbury Bishop’s Palace prior to the Cathedral choir school moving in (Salisbury Cathedral Archives, reproduced in Ptolemy Dean Architects, 2010) Buckden Palace in 1780 (Buck brothers, reproduced in Thompson, 1996) Fulham Palace from the east lawn (author’s own, April 2012) Fulham Palace: The west courtyard, facing towards the north range and hall (author’s own, April 2012)

2

Fig. 38: p.59 Fulham Palace: The Porteous Library, dating to the early nineteenth century (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 39: p.59 Fulham Palace: Bishop Sherlock’s drawing room (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 40: p.59 Bishop’s Park, Fulham (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 41: p.61 The Old Deanery, which has served as the Bishop of London’s house since 1996 (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 42: p.62 Fulham Palace: The education centre, newly converted from a stable block (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 43: p.63 Fulham Palace: The gate lodges beside the old moat (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 44: p.64 Wells Palace from west lawn (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 45: p.65 Wells Palace: The first floor of Jocelin’s hall (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 46: p.65 Wells Palace: The undercroft of Jocelin’s hall (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 47: p.66 Wells Palace: Burnell’s hall, as it would have once appeared (reproduced in Foyle, 2011) Fig. 48: p.66 Wells Palace: The fifteenth-century range (now the bishop’s residence) across the moat (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 49: p.67 Tourist brochure for Wells Palace and Gardens (Wells Bishop’s Palace, 2011) Fig. 50: p.67 Wells Palace: The gallery space within Jocelin’s hall (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 51: p.68 The gate house from Wells’ market place (author’s own, October 2011) Fig. 52: p.69 Hartlebury Castle from the east lawn. (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 53: p.70 Hartlebury Castle: Hurd’s eighteenth-century library (Richard Pollard, June 2011) Fig. 54: p.70 Hartlebury Castle: Eighteenth-century elevation and plan of library scheme (displayed in Hurd Library, photo by Richard Pollard) Fig. 55: p.71 Hartlebury Castle: The eighteenth-century saloon (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 56: p.72 The great hall at Hartlebury Castle (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 57: p.72 The Bishop of Worcester’s new residence (author’s own, April 2012) Fig. 58: p.73 Ground floor of Hartlebury, showing the Hartlebury Preservation Trust’s proposals for new use (Nash Partnership, 2011) Fig. 59: p.75 Aerial photo of Rose Castle today (Simon Ledingham via Visit Cumbria website, 2012) Fig. 60: p.76 First floor plan showing the Friends of Rose Castle’s proposals (Friends of Rose Castle, undated) Fig. 61: p.77 Auckland Castle, shown in 1728 (Buck brothers, reproduced in Rait, 1911) Fig. 62: p.77 Auckland Castle: The dining room, hung with the Zurbaran paintings (Alan Baxter & Associates, 2011)

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks must be extended to several people who have offered assistance and support in preparing this thesis. Firstly, to the course staff at the Architectural Association, Andrew Shepherd and David Heath, as well as my fellow classmates, who have been with me along the way. I am grateful for the assistance of Greg Hudson, from the Church Commissioners, in providing answers to my questions and providing me with some key documents. Thanks also to Helen Garrett at Wells Bishop’s Palace and Rachel Cockett from the Hartlebury Preservation Trust for their willingness to assist with my various queries and requests.

Especial thanks to the Right Reverend John McIntyre, Bishop of Gippsland, Australia, for not only providing advice and comment on my draft, but for triggering an interest in bishops as a result of being one who enacts his role so well, and thus to some extent inspiring this topic of research. Thanks to William Filmer-Sankey and Robert Thorne for providing comment on my draft text and, prior to that, for encouraging me towards this post-graduate undertaking. This is also an opportunity to thank Alan Baxter, who has similarly encouraged my continued education and generously provided funding for my studies. Thanks also goes to many of my other colleagues, particularly Richard Pollard, for their assistance, advice and general moral support in researching and preparing this thesis.

Finally, to Janet McIntyre and Mark Jeldi for casting fresh eyes over the ďŹ nal draft, thereby giving my tired ones a break.

Fig. 1: Hugh Percy, Bishop of Carlisle (1827-1856), in his library at Rose Castle

4

“The history of the See house is one of evolution, and the consistent theme which runs throughout is that the house is ‘fit for purpose’.”

(The Church Commissioners in their recent ‘Strategic Review of See houses: Recommended Principles and Guidelines of Suitability’, 2005)1 “This building is a symbol of tradition which has been constantly worked out against contemporary needs. The rooms did more than provide a meeting place for Barrington’s discussions on education or co-operative trading, or Westcott’s industrial negotiations. It may be difficult in credit terms to evaluate an influence of this kind, and even easy to ignore it, but I hope that no-one who has a concern for the spirit of man will deny its existence.”

(Letter from the Bishop of Durham, Ian Ramsey to Church Commissioners, regarding the See house, Auckland Castle, in November 1969)2

1. Elloy, 2005:14-15 2. Quoted in Chandler, 2006:191

5

1.

INTRODUCTION

England and its Church have changed significantly since the first bishops’ palaces were built in the medieval period. When assessed from a purely functional perspective, it can be argued that the retention of the most historic palaces is untenable for a shrinking Church with fewer funds. They can be inconvenient and are expensive to maintain. Their level of grandeur and pomp has historically antagonised certain elements of society and continues to be problematic as they can be seen as conveying the image of a religious institution out of touch with reality, especially in today’s increasingly secular society. There is the argument that the Church should be more focused on its charitable works and the ministry for which it exists, rather than sustaining its bishops in such houses. However, from a conservation and cultural point of view, the medieval palaces have great historic and architectural importance. Due regard should be given to the fact that they are national assets and form an important part of England’s built heritage. They are undoubtedly worthy of preservation and there is a strong heritage argument for their retention in their original use as bishops’ residence, as the continued episcopal ties across many centuries is one of the principal contributing factors to their significance.

The issue of the Church of England’s historic palaces has drawn particular attention in recent years as there has been a spate of disposals of some of the most architecturally and historically interesting examples. Although a financial factor is acknowledged, the overriding argument given by the Church for their disposal is generally that they have been ruled as unfit for purpose. This thesis seeks to determine whether this is a legitimate claim, and whether the present approach to the assessment of historic bishops’ palaces is sufficient to make well-judged decisions about the future of these important buildings.

Also of interest is the question of what happens to historic bishops’ palaces after they are deemed unsuitable. This is touched upon in addition to the issue of suitability but has not been dealt with in great length, so as not to distract from the central question of this thesis.

It is, however, a subject of a scale and level of interest easily worthy of a separate study in its own right.

The first section, Historic Development, begins with a chapter setting the context of the palaces, providing a summary of the history of the Church of England and its bishops from the medieval period onwards. This is followed by a chapter giving an account of the historic development of the bishops’ palaces themselves, their proliferation and decline.

This involves a discussion of why they were built as they were and in the numbers they were, the form they took, how they were used and how they were managed. Numerous examples of historic palaces are drawn in to enrich this discussion. The section as a whole is intended to provide a background to enable an understanding of the buildings which exist today, and to be able to compare the historic context in which they were built with the current needs of the Church of England. It is based on secondary sources, both modern and antiquarian. These include published academic books on the subject of bishops’ palaces specifically, the development of England’s great houses generally, and the history of the Church and its leadership and management.

6

The following section, The Twenty-First Century Context, provides an outline of the context in which the historic palaces stand today. The first chapter begins with an overview of the Church’s present situation, including its management and the role of the bishops. A discussion of the bishops’ houses follows. This firstly covers the requirements and management of those currently in use, and then provides brief examples of some of the alternative uses redundant historic bishops’ palaces have taken on. A discussion of the conservation context follows in the second chapter of this section. This begins with a summary of those current bishops’ houses which are afforded statutory protection and the implications of this. It then carries on to detail some of the present concerns being expressed by various heritage bodies and interest groups as a result of the recent disposals.

The discussion of the Church is informed mainly by reports from the Church of England, while the discussion of the buildings and the conservation context is informed by list descriptions, reports, newspaper articles and other secondary sources.

Fit for Purpose?, as the final section, offers a critique of how the Church assesses the suitability of these buildings. The first chapter provides a summary of the statutory legislation affecting the Church Commissioners, while the second chapter details their adopted guidance for assessment. The third chapter presents a short series of case studies, to provide an overview of the review process in action. The case studies cover five dioceses where historic bishops’ palaces have come under assessment during the last fifty years, and have been selected as they demonstrate some instances of how the review process and outcomes have differed. The final chapter of this section provides an assessment of the Church Commissioners’ review process, based on the major themes which have emerged from the previous chapters. This draws comparisons between the case studies, highlights contradictions between written policy and action, and provides a critique of the approach taken by the Commissioners, both in regards to their assessment of suitability and their treatment of historic properties specifically. The first chapters of this section are based on relevant statutory legislation documents and Church Commissioners’ reports, both published and unpublished. The first three case studies are based on site visits, journal articles, press releases, published books, archive material, and conversations and email communication with people involved with the relevant buildings. The fourth case study, which is more brief and combines two buildings, is based only on secondary sources, without site visits. Efforts were made to speak to bishops about their opinions on suitability and historic properties to inform this final section but, unfortunately, this was not possible so their views are derived from secondary sources.

The conclusion draws together the various elements of the thesis in an attempt to determine whether the historic bishops’ palaces can be deemed suitable for modern-day bishops.

Comment is made on the present approach taken in determining the suitability of the historic houses, outlining some of the apparent contradictions and problems. Based on the needs of the Church and its bishops, as drawn out through the analysis in previous sections, suggestion is made for what should be the prime factors in considering whether a bishop’s house is fit for purpose. Finally, consideration is given as to how the issue of suitability for the bishop can coincide with the conservation concerns regarding these historic assets.

7

2.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT

To understand why the bishops’ palaces are what they are today, and to understand how the Church has come to own these buildings, it is first necessary to outline the historic context in which they were constructed and how they developed over time, in line with the wider societal context. The first chapter of this section provides an overview of the Church of England’s development since the medieval period. Although Christianity was practised in this country prior to the Norman Conquest, the earliest known standing remains of episcopal residences date to the medieval period, so this is the most appropriate starting point for the purposes of this study. Having established the changing role of the Church and its bishops, the next chapter looks specifically at the bishops’ houses – their original locations and functions, their architecture, how their numbers proliferated and then declined, and changes to their ownership and management.

2.1

History of the Church

Medieval England was a fundamentally Christian society and its whole structure and much of everyday life was focused around and determined by the religious system. The powers of the monarch were believed to be ordained by divine right while the Church leaders were considered to be God’s spokespeople (Beeson, 2002:228). In a country with deeply ingrained religiosity, this belief unsurprisingly led to a situation where the bishops had massive status and power. The most senior Church leaders then, as now, were the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Both men had responsibility for a province which was made up of dioceses, the total number of which was 17 in England, with a further four in Wales. Responsibility for each diocese fell to the diocesan bishops who again enjoyed substantial powers within their jurisdiction.

As religious leaders, the primary duty of the bishops was pastoral care and charity, but they were also expected to perform a political and judicial role. Hence, the criteria on which a bishop was selected were rather different from what we expect today, with the title generally earned by political and military service to the monarch (Thompson, 1998:71).

Men of noble birth therefore had a head-start due to their connections, but the background of the bishops varied and it was one of the few areas in society that provided an opportunity for people of non-noble birth to better their lot (Swanson, 1989:80). A bishop needed an education, but once this was secured, there was in effect no restriction on priests aspiring to reaching the highest ranks of ministry. Although many bishops took seriously their pastoral duties, the status of the role also attracted men more interested in progressing their own fortunes. The fact that the bishops were largely unanswerable to anyone led to corruption increasingly becoming a problem in the medieval Church. It is fair to say that the bishops were respected by the populace due to their perceived divine connection, but not generally popular (Thompson, 1998:13).

The secure position of the bishops came under fire in 1381 when a number were targeted during civil unrest. Two poll taxes to raise funds for the Hundred Years’ War had been imposed since 1377 and, come the third, the peasants revolted. The bishops incurred their

8

wrath as they were seen to be part of the elite ranks of society, and many were in support of the tax. The riots were, in effect, the culmination of what had been growing discontent which, some contemporary commentators observed, the bishops brought upon themselves due to “absenteeism, neglect of pastoral duty, life of luxury and so on” (Thompson, 1998:107). Many bishops carried out their duties effectively, but those who failed to do so tarnished the reputation of the episcopacy considerably (Swanson, 1989:81). The riots demonstrated to the Church leadership that they ignored the needs of the population at their own risk. Although the bishops retained their powers, this was the first major expression of a feeling that was to persist, of the bishops being associated with “those elements in society which exercise power in an arbitrary and unjust manner, to their own great benefit and to the serious disadvantage of the common people.” (Beeson, 2002:2) The Reformation further served to demonstrate the precariousness of the episcopacy, as the Crown demonstrated its position over and above the bishops. The bishops’ privileged rank in society was maintained even as the English Church was redefined in its break from Rome. However, they had to subscribe to the politics and interests of the monarch if they were to stand any chance of being appointed or keep their office once installed (Beeson, 2002:2). This submission to the Crown reached to matters of land and property, as will be discussed in the next section. In this turbulent period, with their position and income very much under threat, the bishops “struggled as best they could to offer spiritual leadership in a cold climate” (Heal, 1980:327). After the Reformation, the number of dioceses in England, and therefore the number of bishops, was increased to 22. Although the numbers of the bishops were strengthened, the status of the individual bishops was reduced (Thompson, 1998:150).

Following the Reformation, the English Civil War had a further, dramatic impact on the Church leadership. With the establishment of the Commonwealth, the bishops were first ejected from the House of Lords and then the episcopacy was abolished in 1646. Although these measures were reversed with the Restoration in 1660 and the bishops were returned to the House of Lords, their position had suffered a significant blow. There were increasing moves to disentangle Church and State, so their role became increasingly confined to religious leadership. They would no longer be granted distinctly political roles, with the last bishop to hold a high diplomatic appointment being John Robinson, Bishop of London from 1713 to 1723. In further demonstration of the changing role of bishops at this period, Robinson succeeded the last to have appeared in arms, Henry Compton, Bishop of London from 1675 to 1713 (Venables, 1895:67).

Although less turbulent, the eighteenth century was another difficult period for the Church and its bishops. Following the Enlightenment, there was an increase in the acceptance of scientific thinking, while non-conformist religions, such as Methodism, saw distinct growth. Although the bishops undoubtedly strived to continue in their pastoral duties, most failed to recognise the implications of these changes in society or to respond appropriately.

It has therefore been suggested that the bishops of this period were overly complacent and the Church “largely somnolent” (Beeson, 2002:3).

9

The waning influence of the Church and negative public opinion of the bishops once again came to a head in anti-episcopal riots in the 1830s. In 1832, the Reform Bill was brought forward by the Whigs. This proposed to increase the number of people eligible to vote and give seats in the House of Commons to areas which had experienced significant growth, particularly the cities of the Industrial Revolution with their large working-class populations. When the Bill came to the House of Lords, almost all the bishops were opposed and their votes against it halted its progress through parliament (Beeson, 2002:2).

The response of the population was “near-revolutionary ferment” as they reacted against this group which seemed to only be serving to maintain the comfortable existence of the aristocratic classes (Chadwick, 1986:4). The bishops and other members of the House of Lords were targeted, with attacks on a number of properties and persons including the burning down of the bishop’s palace in Bristol (Edge, 2006:100). The Reform Act was passed soon after but the reputation of the bishops had further suffered with this episode.

At this point, the Church realised that there was a need to reconsider its structure and management in order to redress some of the glaringly evident inequalities which had been inherent since the medieval period. In order to survive, it was necessary to quell the view of the Church as “a reactionary body with masses of posts with no function but that of giving the sons of squires a decent income at a comfortable house in the country” (Chadwick, 1986:4). One step was the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by an Act of Parliament in 1836, with the ambition that they would introduce a fairer system of management. In common with the already existing Queen Anne’s Bounty, established in 1704, they were tasked with offering financial aid to the poorest vicars and contributing towards “the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required” (Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act, 1840:67). Their responsibilities were varied but of particular relevance to the bishops’ palaces was their task of rationalising all the Church’s property and land. Although originally formed of a majority of bishops, it was quickly realised that this left the Ecclesiastical Commissioners open to criticism as the bishops were seen to have a vested interest. They were already being accused of neglecting their duties to poor clergy and instead focused on “feathering their nests [and] plundering the Church” (Chadwick, 1986:11-13). As a result, more non-clergy professionals were enlisted and three Estates Commissioners established – principal members, all laymen, who were made responsible for the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Part of their role was to report on the Commissioners’ actions to the House of Commons to ensure transparency (Chadwick, 1986:16; Brown, 1944:10).

The discontent sparked by the Reform Bill also resulted in some immediate changes to the selection of bishops. Increasingly, there was a move towards appointments based on spiritual leadership qualities (Beeson, 2002:3). It has been suggested that, despite good intentions, the Church leaders in this period failed to be progressive in their ministry and therefore maintained an image of “identification with the prosperous and usually conservative minority in society” (Beeson, 2002:5). Undoubtedly, some nineteenthcentury bishops were old-fashioned in their approach to ministry and continued to underestimate the implications of changes in society. However, the philanthropy of the

10

Victorian era and the concerted efforts of the Church to draw people back to religion demonstrate the enthusiasm and commitment to charity and pastoral care in this period.

As the Church moved into the twentieth century, the background of bishops also began to broaden markedly. Changes brought in by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made the position more viable to those without family money, while the Church began to look beyond the traditional Oxford and Cambridge alumni for its leaders (Beeson, 2002:6; Petre, 2002). Despite this, the twentieth century saw a further decline in adherence to the Church, with bishops continuing to battle against an image of conservatism and irrelevance.

11

2.2

Historical Development of Bishops’ Houses

Having set out the historical context of the Church and of the changing role of bishops, it is now possible to look specifically at bishops’ palaces and how their function, numbers and management have changed since the medieval period in response to the status of bishops and the Church, as well as to the wider societal and architectural context.

Michael Thompson, in his 1998 study of bishops’ houses, attempts to define the different types and to establish a correct terminology dependent on their location and their architectural form. The different locations of the residence inform as to whether it should be defined as a “See house”, “manor house” or “London house”. The difference between “castle”, “palace” and “house” are in theory dependent on their architectural features but this seems to be less clearly defined. The problem is exacerbated by the sometimes seemingly random application of the term “castle” which, by definition, should indicate a fortified building but rarely does when it comes to bishops’ residences. In any case, it has also been suggested that contemporaries to these buildings are unlikely to have drawn such distinctions between palaces and other types (Keevill, 2000:16). The differentiations between these types were relevant to Thompson’s study but are of less use in this instance so rather than carefully defining strict terminology, names are used interchangeably throughout. In any case, the terminology used by the Church Commissioners today for all but Lambeth Palace is “See house”. Historically, a diocese had multiple bishops’ houses but the fact that each now has only one residence for each diocese (with the exception of the Archbishop of Canterbury having a London residence) makes it unnecessary to distinguish them by different terminology.

Locations

As mentioned above, an individual bishop historically had multiple houses at his disposal.

This was primarily because his role demanded that he travel extensively around his diocese, which required him to have strategically located residences. A bishop would have a residence in the cathedral city, one in London to reside at while in attendance at Parliament, and an undefined number of manor houses. The manor houses were built on estates owned by the diocese, which were also the source of much of the bishop’s income and his food supply. Most of these fell within the boundary of the diocese, though there were instances of “peculiars” located, for various reasons, within other dioceses.

The number of manor houses varied significantly, dependent on the size and wealth of the diocese, to which might also be added the personal wealth of a bishop if he was from a land-owning family (Hembry, 1978:150). For example, Winchester was one of the wealthiest medieval dioceses and had, in Henry de Blois, a bishop who was an incredibly keen builder (Rait, 1910:12). He gave the diocese an early start in the twelfth century with the erection of examples such as Farnham Castle, Surrey; Taunton Castle, Somerset and Swainston Manor, Isle of Wight. These all survive in some degree, although with later alterations, particularly so at Swainston Manor, which is dominated by the eighteenthcentury extension. By the late medieval period, the diocese is suggested to have had about 75 manor houses (Thompson, 1998:3). Those known manors are shown on the distribution map overleaf (Fig.2, p.13). In comparison, a diocese such as Rochester, which was one

12

Fig. 2: Distribution of medieval manor houses. This shows those manor houses for which there is known evidence. Note the number and spread of the Diocese of Winchester’s property, shown in orange in the south, compared with that of Rochester, in purple in the area around London.

13

Fig. 3: Bishopthorpe Palace, sited by the River Ouse. Its location is secluded but within easy distance of York.

of the poorer dioceses and much smaller, would have had far fewer manor houses. None of its known manor houses stand in their original form, although ruins and remains are evident at sites in Bromley, London; Trottiscliffe, Kent and Halling, Kent. As will be elaborated on later, the number of houses owned by all dioceses also went into decline from the sixteenth century onwards.

Although there were a number of residences to support a bishop as he travelled around his diocese, it was generally the case that one was particularly favoured, and this could vary down the line of incumbents. However, in most instances, Thompson observes that the most consistently utilised residence appears to have been one situated on a manor, but generally within easy distance of the cathedral city for those occasions when the bishop was required there (Thompson, 1996:9). An example of this is Bishopthorpe Palace (Fig.3), which remains the Archbishop of York’s residence to this day. Located by the river, three miles south of York, this is thought to have been built by Archbishop Gray in the early thirteenth century as “a quiet place of retreat not too far away from his city or minster” (Venables, 1895:32).

Functions

Although the role of a bishop has changed over the centuries, in many respects, the fundamentals of his role have remained consistent and, so too, the requirements of his residences. His duties have been divided between the administration of his diocese, including the selection and appointment of priests, and his ministry and religious duties.

His residences have therefore been required to accommodate many functions continuously throughout the centuries, with some exceptions. Put most basically, they have always had to be a blend between a public and private building, serving both functions adequately (Keevill, 2000:12-13).

14

The main function of a bishop’s house is to serve as a residence. As with anyone of high status in the past, the medieval bishop’s household would have been substantial. A certain number of staff would have been present during his absences to maintain the buildings but the significant number, particularly in the medieval period, would have been the entourage of officials and servants who went with him as he moved between estates. Whereas the royal household had no great requirement to be literate, a bishop would have been accompanied by educated gentlemen and clerks (Heal, 1980:75). His large household would have necessitated not only ample accommodation but also large service buildings, for instance stables, kitchens, brewhouses and storehouses, though few of these survived intact into later periods as they were often demolished or altered (Keevill, 2000:86,141).

At Bishop’s Waltham, a ruined twelfth-century castle of the Bishop of Winchester, the bakehouse is no exception, but enough remains to get a sense of its once massive scale (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: The bakehouse at Bishop’s Waltham Castle. This gives a sense of the scale of the service buildings.

The next key function of a bishop’s house was as a base from which he could share hospitality. This was one of the prime duties of bishops right back to the medieval period, with it said that “a bishop’s house without hospitality is as a tavern without wine” (Becon in Heal, 1989:7). In many respects, the hospitality offered by the bishop was similar to that offered by secular lords, but his role of charity was particularly pronounced and, more so than with royal palaces, carried on as a central part of how he used his house beyond the feudal period. Most bishops recognised that their privileges and wealth brought with them responsibilities not held by the secular lords (Heal, 1980:20). The hospitality they offered was a way of sharing their wealth with those in need. It therefore formed a central part of a bishop’s pastoral, charitable role, rather than serving a purely social function (Heal, 1980:76; Fincham, 1990:73-4).

15

The scope of a bishop’s role in the medieval period and subsequent centuries went beyond charitable hospitality, however, and his residence would host myriad public and private ceremonies and formal gatherings, for the enacting of “mitred style and justice” (Keevill, 2000:18). It would host religious ceremonial events, therefore requiring space enough for not only the enactment of the main ceremony but for formal processions, as well as chambers to serve as robing rooms (Hembry, 1978:156). He would also have been expected to host dignitaries, with the bishops’ residences of England bearing witness to many royal visits between them. Although the scale and nature of these events may have changed for most diocesan bishops over the centuries, there has always been, and will always be, a need to give hospitality, sometimes on a large scale.

Perhaps less grandiose, but of equal importance, was the bishop’s administrative role, which was also enacted principally from his palace. The bishop was responsible for the stewardship of often vast amounts of land, so part of his responsibility was the administration of the estates, in which he was assisted by the literate members of his household (Thompson, 1998:8; Heal, 1980:43-45). His palace was required to serve as a suitable base for this activity and the manor houses were often sited with this in mind. He also played a governing and judicial role in his diocese, and a palace would necessarily accommodate offices for the carrying out of these duties, as well as space for holding court.

In addition, in support of his judicial role, some palaces reportedly contained prisons for convicted clerics (Hembry, 1978:156). Occasionally, a palace would also accommodate facilities for private tutelage, as many bishops supported education as part of their charitable efforts. More often, however, institutions were established separate from his residence (Heal, 1980:78-9).

As well as its functional purposes, a bishop’s house held a symbolic role as his rank in society demanded a suitably grand and impressive residence (Hembry, 1978:155; Heal, 1980:39). The residence was expected to follow the convention of someone of high status, impressing upon the common people his divinely appointed oversight. As the buildings played host to secular dignitaries, they needed to be worthy of that purpose as well.

However, the contradictions arising from this expectation of grandeur against the modesty and restraint tied to a bishops’ pastoral role was always problematic (Heal, 1980:321, Fincham, 1990:14). The demands of his status have been called “at best a nuisance and at worst a total impediment” (Heal, 1980:238). However, it is also recognised that, while a great palace may have caused contempt in some, in the hierarchical society of the medieval period, it undoubtedly succeeded in earning respect for the individual bishop and for the episcopacy as a whole (Fincham, 1990:14). While some bishops would have exercised restraint, it seems that others were unhindered by the suggestion that excessive expenditure on their house may contravene canonical law, and it is suggested that those that indulged often did so on their manors, away from the eye of the cathedral chapter (Thompson, 1998:84).

It is generally thought that, with a few exceptions, the bishops had relatively little need for defences for their residences. Admittedly, the bishop has not always had a good relationship with common people, while some antiquarian accounts have suggested that as the power of the episcopacy increased, there was the need to have “a castle large enough to accommodate his armed forces, and strong enough to stand the attacks of hostile

16

neighbours” (Rait, 1910:2). It is clear that the palaces in the extreme north and extreme south did feel a need for strong defences in the medieval period as they were at some real threat from the Scots and the French (Thompson, 1998:157, Hembry, 1978:156). For instance, the Bishop of Carlisle’s Rose Castle (Fig. 5) was burnt down in attacks more than once, while the Bishop of Ely’s Amberley Castle is also suggested to have been castellated for good reason, due its location near the south coast in West Sussex (Thompson, 1998:110). Generally, however, the consensus is that the most defence a bishop would actually require on the majority of his residences would be rather basic, and serve only to act as deterrence during periods of unrest or when the bishop was absent (Thompson, 1998:158, Keevill, 2000:125).

Fig. 5: Rose Castle, Cumbia. The building was fortified as it was vulnerable to attack from the Scots due to its location.

Form and Design

The architectural style and form employed by the bishops was at the forefront of society, though there is some debate as to whether they actually set any trends in their domestic architecture. Undoubtedly, the Church was pivotal in architectural developments and well ahead in terms of its cathedrals, which demonstrated the finest craftsmanship and the greatest possibilities of engineering in the medieval period. However, in its domestic architecture it is not generally considered to have been a leader in trends. In the words of Thompson, “this is not to say that they lagged behind but that the development of their secular buildings kept closely in step with the general development of lay architecture” (1998:136). Others suggest that the developments were so closely tied together that it is impossible to say whether the monarchy or bishops were the trend-setters (Keevill, 2000:160). They are only occasionally noted as having been “pacemakers”, for example, with the extensive use of brick in many of the palace building exercises of the fifteenth century, before the material came into wider use (Hembry, 1978:155).

17

What is certain is that the pattern of development of royal residences which has been traced from the medieval period onward can be equally applied to the residences of bishops. As the status of bishops reflected that of the secular lords, so to did their houses.

They were “as politically motivated as their secular counterparts and were frequently as wealthy, with houses of a comparable scale” (Emery, 1996:2). Most academic studies of England’s great houses concur that there is very little to differentiate between those of secular and religious leaders. In his study of bishops’ houses, Thompson draws the conclusion that the only distinguishing element apparently unique to bishops’ houses is the frequent appearance of a two-storeyed chapel, with vaulted undercroft and principal chapel at first floor (1998:65,157). The undercroft is likely to have served as a secondary chapel (Rait, 1911:37), although it has been suggested of the one at Lambeth Palace that it may have been used as a court of justice (Venables, 1895:19). The early-thirteenth century undercroft at Lambeth is extant, while the first floor chapel has been modified on several occasions. At Ely Place in London, the early fourteenth-century two-storey chapel is all that remains of the Bishop of Ely’s London house (Fig. 7, p.19), while examples such as that at Hereford have been demolished (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Hereford Palace’s two-storey chapel. Now demolished.

18

Fig. 7: Bishop of Ely’s London chapel. The ground-floor windows below street level relate to the undercroft.

Fig. 8: The aisled hall at Auckland Castle, now converted to a chapel.

In common with great secular houses, the central hall at a bishop’s palace was one of the most prominent features and a venue for hospitality. The size and lavishness of the halls constructed is testament to the central importance of this element of a bishop’s role. In some instances the hall was on the first floor with a vaulted undercroft, as can be seen in the early thirteenth-century examples at Wells Bishop’s Palace (Figs. 45 and 46, p.65) or Bishopthorpe Palace. This also appears to have been the case at Salisbury Bishop’s Palace (Fig. 9, p.20), constructed around 1220 but modified in the eighteenth century. In other instances, halls were at ground floor, often aisled to enable a more spectacular height to be achieved. A particularly notable example is that at Auckland Castle, in the Diocese of Durham, constructed around the end of the twelfth century. This was later converted into a chapel, but the scale of it can still be appreciated (Fig.8). A later, un-aisled groundfloor hall is the fifteenth-century example at Hartlebury, in Worcestershire. This has been redecorated but retains some original elements, including the timber roof trusses (Fig.56, p.72).

Another architectural trend evidenced in the bishops’ palaces is a change in planform as England moved towards a more private society in the later medieval period. This involved an increasing separation of the bishop, his clerks and, later, family from his servants (Keevill, 2000:27). This trend demonstrated itself architecturally in a progress towards

19

Fig. 9 : The vaulted undercroft of the hall at Salisbury Bishop’s Palace. The building is now occupied by a school.

distinctly separate private chambers, followed by the appearance of the double-courtyard, and separate lodging ranges for servants (Emery, 1996:4, Thompson, 1998:157). One of the ways in which this transition occurred was in the construction of new, bigger great halls to supersede existing halls, which would then allow the older hall to be adapted for use as distinctly separate private quarters (Thompson, 1998:34, 155; Keevill, 2000:86). The aforementioned hall at Wells was superseded by a great aisled hall later in the thirteenth century, unfortunately now in ruins though with its scale still evident. The new hall was distinctly separate from the old and roughly at right angles to it, but the effect is that of a sprawling, rather than strict plan (Fig. 10, p.21). At Salisbury, the old hall was also superseded by a larger hall, more aligned but still with a feel of organic growth (Fig. 11, p.21). At the ruined Wolvesey Castle (Fig. 12, p.22) and Lincoln Palace (Fig. 13, p.22) the plan is a little more cohesive, progressing towards a courtyard appearance as, at each site, the new hall was built roughly parallel to the old and the site entered through a gatehouse linking the two. By Hatfield Palace, rebuilt in the late fifteenth century for the Bishop of Ely, an unmistakable courtyard plan had been adopted (Fig.14, p.23), while Fulham Palace in London demonstrates a double-court plan, which took its current form at the beginning of the sixteenth century, though the smaller courtyard had existed prior to that (Fig.15, p.23).

20

N

Fig. 10: Plan of Wells Bishop’s Palace. The original hall is that part labelled house, the later hall is in the top right. The building to the bottom dates to the sixteenth century.

�����������

Fig. 11: Plan of Salisbury Bishop’s Palace. The refectory is the original hall and the cloak area is the remains of the larger, fifteenth-century hall. The music room is the undercroft of the chapel and other parts are later infill.

������

21

Fig. 12: Plan of the ruins of Wolvesey Castle. The form of the west hall is only partly known but the progress towards a courtyard is still apparent.

Fig. 13 Plan of the ruins of Lincoln Palace. A narrow, rough courtyard form has taken shape.

22

Fig. 14: Plan of HatďŹ eld Palace. This shows a clearly planned courtyard, though only one range remains today.

Fig. 15: Plan of Fulham Palace. The main, public entrance led to the west courtyard, while an additional, smaller courtyard enabled separation between private and public.

23

Several bishops’ palaces have defensive features such as crenellations, sturdy boundary walls, gatehouses and moats.

As already discussed, however, in most instances strong defence was not necessary and often these features would have merely been an adoption of the architectural language of power.

The licence to crenellate, which could only be obtained from the monarch, would have been a demonstration that a bishop had gained royal trust and support. In other respects, devices such as walls and moats may have simply been to create “enclosure and definition”, with moats in particular serving an additional picturesque purpose (Keevill, 2000:125). There are numerous examples of buildings with boundary walls and crenellations, including Durham Castle (Fig. 16) and Auckland Castle (Fig. 61, p.77), both belonging to the Bishop of Durham. A moat can be seen at Wells (Fig. 17) but others, such as that at Fulham, have been in-filled (Fig.43, p.63).

Fig. 17: The moat at Wells Bishop’s Palace.

Fig. 16: Durham Castle’s castellations. These potentially served a purely symbolic purpose.

24

As with the houses of secular aristocracy, the architecture of the bishops’ houses changed significantly over the medieval period and on into the following centuries (Thompson, 1998:144). The significant changes in accepted social ritual, levels of comfort and tastes, amongst other things, were liable to change the architecture of new buildings, as well as giving rise to significant alterations to residences which were seen to be outmoded. Those bishops’ palaces which maintained their popularity amongst a series of incumbents experienced incremental growth, as passing generations of bishops renovated and extended. Naturally, only those with sufficient wealth to do so were able to extend, but they generally did so extensively and largely unabated in terms of taste and preference. It was particularly the case from the late medieval period onwards that there were less instances of new sites being developed, and more cases of refurbishment (Keevill, 2000:29). A notable addition at a number of residences in the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries was a devoted library. One of the most noted examples is that at Hartlebury Castle, Worcestershire (Fig. 53, p.70) while others include those at Rose Castle (Fig. 1, p.4) and Fulham Palace (Fig. 38, p.59). Although bishops had always been learned men, they perhaps did not have substantial personal collections of books in earlier centuries or, if they did, did not put them on open display. The eighteenth century was a period in which it became fashionable to make evident one’s learnedness (Girouard, 1978:64), so it is interesting to note the apparent proliferation of devoted libraries in the houses of bishops, coinciding with this trend.

It is worthwhile to briefly mention the grounds in which the palaces sit, as these formed an important part of the arrangement from the earliest period and were certainly of equal interest to those that erected the buildings (Keevill, 2000:25). For one, the manor houses sat at the centre of a “wealth-producing unit” (Thompson, 1998:3). This included farmland, fishponds and, for the more important dioceses at least, deer parks. Tithes were claimed from farmers working the diocese’s land, which were stored in a large tithe barn on the manor. However, the grounds also had a less functional role. The deer parks are

Fig. 18: 1610 map of Co. Durham. Deer parks are shown encircled, including that at Bishop Auckland.

25

Fig. 19: Fulham Palace’s walled garden. The knot garden is a re-creation of the early nineteenth-century garden.

believed to have been for recreational use as well as being a source of food, with hunting being a popular pastime of the upper ranks of society (Thompson, 1998:152). The Bishops of Durham and the Bishops of Winchester were known to indulge in such pursuits, as evidenced in the deer parks at Bishop Auckland (Fig.18, p.25) and Farnham.

The siting of a residence on an estate was also undoubtedly influenced by the choice of setting to be enjoyed and features such as fish ponds served an aesthetic purpose additional to their functional role (Keevill, 2000:133). The immediate surrounds of the bishop’s residence were also important, and seem to have been carefully landscaped. The typical medieval form is only partly understood from archaeology (Thompson, 1998:154) but, like the houses, the gardens would have kept pace with the trends, from formal to picturesque across the centuries. A number are particularly highly regarded, including those at Wells Palace and Fulham Palace (Fig.19). Aside from the personal enjoyment of the bishop, it seems almost certain that the gardens would have been used for hospitality.

Building Trends

The first major building boom for bishops’ palaces was the early twelfth century, coinciding with the period in the Church’s history when the bishops’ power was comfortable and unquestioned. The new order was also making itself known physically, as the native episcopacy was replaced following the Norman Conquest (Thompson, 1998:29).

At this time, the combined property and resources of the bishops would have outweighed those of the Crown (Keevill, 2000:24-25). Although wealth was a primary prerequisite of being able to construct these great houses, the monarch was able to suppress building.

However, Henry I is noted to have taken “a relaxed approach”, allowing this proliferation to take place (Thompson, 1998:103). The works of Henry de Blois, as already mentioned, are examples of buildings originally constructed in this period. Conversely, many castles were confiscated in 1139 due to the question of whether it contravened canon law for a bishop to inhabit or construct a castle (Thompson, 1998:99). This, however, did not have a marked impact on the building efforts of the medieval bishops.

26

The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were also significant for the building and improvement of bishops’ houses. Thompson notes this as being “something of a golden age”, an observation which is confirmed by Phyllis Hembry in her study of bishops’ palaces of this period (Thompson, 1998:136; Hembry, 1978:152-3). Examples of palaces where works were undertaken in these centuries are the Archbishop of Canterbury’s manor houses at Maidstone (Fig. 20) and Knole (Fig. 21), both of which have undergone subsequent alterations, and Otford, of which all that remains is a tower and part of a wall (Fig. 22, p.28). Houses of diocesan bishops altered or rebuilt in this period include the Bishop of Ely’s palace at Hatfield and the Bishop of Chichester’s palaces at Bexhill and Cakeham, all of which only survive in part. Although five new dioceses were formed following the Reformation, the new bishops were provided with sequestered abbot’s houses, rather than building new palaces.

Fig. 20: Maidstone Palace. First constructed in the fourteenth century, and enlarged in the mid-fifteenth century.

Fig. 21: Knole Palace was sacrificed to the Crown in the sixteenth century, and extended greatly in later centuries. This view dates to the eighteenth century.

27

Fig. 22: The surviving tower of Otford Palace. The sixteenth-century palace replaced an earlier manor house.

This spate of building followed soon after the 1380s anti-episcopal riots. Hembry sees this as suggesting that the bishops remained confident in their position despite public discontent and criticisms (Hembry, 1978:152-3). Thompson’s observation that there was an increase in building on manors, where bishops would not have to factor in the spacial restrictions encountered next to cathedrals, also paints a picture of an episcopacy unfazed by recent events and confident in their wealth (Thompson, 1998:136). However, Graham Keevill’s view of this period is slightly different, with the suggestion that there was increasing awareness of “public displeasure as ecclesiastical excesses grew” (Keevill, 2000:3). Much of the building was done by few, so many bishops may have indeed made an effort to rein in their expenses. Adding to the picture is the fact that at least twenty medieval palaces are known to no longer have been in use by the sixteenth century. Hembry puts this down to the fact that these buildings were outmoded, suggesting that it was lack of interest rather than funds that caused them to be abandoned, in common with a number of Crown properties (Hembry, 1978:152). It has also been observed that by the sixteenth century bishops were becoming less peripatetic (Rait, 1911:13; Payne, 2003:222). There was therefore little use in them maintaining all their houses, particularly those in peculiars and further afield.

Following the boom of the fifteenth and early-sixteenth centuries, the dissolution of the monasteries and the Reformation had significant downward effects on the endowments of the bishops. A great number of bishops pre-emptively gave over their excess residences to the Crown as they witnessed the claiming of monastic properties and judged that it would not be long before they became targets (Hembry, 1978:159, Keevill, 2000:30). Although there was never a full-scale seizure of episcopal property, a number of instances occurred where bishops were coerced into giving up palaces to which Henry VIII had taken a fancy, including the aforementioned Knole and Otford (Hembry, 1978:154). Queen Elizabeth also reduced the endowments held by bishops, refusing to sanction their appointments if they would not relinquish property (Chadwick, 1986:3). In addition to the manor houses, the London palaces were mostly lost by the Church during this period as they were seen as particularly valuable land by the Crown (Thompson, 1998:71). The only one still standing today is Lambeth Palace while, as already mentioned, the chapel of the Bishop of Ely’s house also remains.

28

Fig. 23: The distribution of manor houses prior to (top), and after (bottom) the Reformation.

29

Some of the episcopal palaces were regained after this period, but there was a marked reduction in the overall number (Fig. 23, p.29). At least 67, or about a third, of the palaces had been lost across all dioceses (Hembry, 1978:158-159). It was not only the palaces themselves that had been taken but also much diocesan land. This resulted in a reduction of income for the bishops, so that many struggled to carry out repairs and keep up maintenance on the houses which they still held. This was exacerbated by the general inflation of the period which was also affecting the costs of their other commitments such as meeting the demands of their hospitality duties (Alexander, 1978:145).

There was minor relief under the reign of James I as an Act was called to protect all episcopal property and estates from transfer to the monarch or any other person. This was to enable “the better maintenance of God’s true religion, keeping of hospitality and avoiding dilapidations” (Hembry, 1978:163-164). However, the general reduction in income, the priority to carry out repairs and insecurity in the episcopacy’s position led to a reduction in the number of new building works (Hembry, 1978:163). For the first time since the medieval period, the fortunes of the bishops were diverging from those of the secular landed classes, as they stopped building and struggled to offer the same level of hospitality (Heal, 1980:320). Although individual bishops may have struggled to balance their expenditure prior to this period, the widespread problems experienced as they as a group recovered from the Reformation mirrored what was to come centuries later, as the Church today tries to rationalise and manage its assets and income.

The beginning of civil war in 1642 soon put another halt to the activities of any bishops who had dared begin building again, and the existing palaces became obvious targets for Parliamentarians. This attack on the episcopal endowments, and the “ensuing devastation” was a major blow for the bishops, with at least 19 major residences and five minor residences either severely damaged or completely ruined (Hembry, 1978:164). Those that were redeemable after the Restoration incurred massive costs in their repair and rebuilding. “The Church had been restored and episcopal possessions had been reclaimed from the parliamentary purchasers, but the piles of ruinous masonry and the ravaged deer parks surrounding them were a mute testimony to the fate of bishops’ palaces” (Hembry, 1978:166). At Auckland Castle, the Parliamentarian who had taken up occupation had demolished the chapel, leading to the conversion of the hall as mentioned previously, along with further works. In the diocese of Winchester, Wolvesey Castle, Bishop’s Waltham, Farnham Castle and Taunton Castle all changed hands during the Civil War and all were left dilapidated in the aftermath, due to deliberate and incidental damage. Rather than restore all the residences, materials from the uninhabitable Bishop’s Waltham were salvaged for new works elsewhere. At Wolvesey, an entirely new, Baroque palace was built alongside the ruined castle, from which useful materials were recycled (Fig. 24, p.31).

The following centuries saw a continued focus on improvements to existing buildings, rather than the erection of new houses. The activeness of the Georgian and Victorian bishops in this regard is evidenced in many of the surviving buildings. Sometimes works were confined to the redecoration of internal spaces but other times involved the demolition and rebuilding of significant parts. Eighteenth-century redecoration works can be seen at, for example, Salisbury Palace in Bishop Barrington’s drawing room (Fig. 26, p.32), Fulham Palace in Bishop Sherlock’s drawing room (Fig. 39, p.59), and Hartlebury

30

Fig. 24: Wolvesey Palace, built alongside the ruins of Wolvesey Castle. Only one wing remains, and still serves as the Bishop of Winchester’s residence.

Castle in Bishop Johnson’s saloon (Fig. 55, p.71). The palace in the city of Worcester, thirteenth century in origin, was extensively remodelled and received a Baroque façade (Fig. 25). Even more drastic were works undertaken at Ely, where Bishop Keene pulled down most of the palace in order to rebuild.

Following the formation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1836, there is evidence that the bishops continued to redecorate and rebuild parts of their residences, even though their stipends were capped. Bishop Musgrave built a new wing at Hereford Palace shortly after the Commissioners’ establishment, while William Butterfield was brought in to erect a new chapel at Fulham Palace (Fig. 28, p.32). Clearly, personal wealth was still being invested in many instances throughout the Victorian period. A number of Georgian and Victorian bishops also took a noticeable interest in their grounds. Rather than their deer-hunting predecessors, they tended to focus on the gardens immediately surrounding the palace, which were often reworked to the modern trends for picturesque, informal gardens. This can be seen at Wells, where Bishop Law turned the already ruinous hall into a picturesque feature (Fig.27, p.32).

Fig. 25: Worcester Palace’s eighteenth-century façade. This is now the diocesan offices.

31

Fig. 26: Barrington’s drawing room at Salisbury Palace.

Fig. 27: The picturesque ruins of Burnell’s hall at Wells Palace.

Fig. 28: The interior of Butterfield’s chapel at Fulham Palace, prior to post-war bomb damage repair and restoration.

32

Although the general pattern was one of decline in the number of episcopal residences from the Tudor period onwards, the formation of new dioceses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries necessitated the acquisition of new residences. As with those dioceses founded at the Reformation, most of the residences were provided from existing buildings, though not usually with pre-existing Church connections. The Bishop of Liverpool was provided with a Georgian townhouse in the city when that diocese was founded in 1880, Farnham Castle passed from the Bishop of Winchester to the new Bishop of Guildford in 1923, while, interestingly, the Bishop of Newcastle found himself in a monastic building which had been sold into secular use after the Dissolution and heavily restored in the early nineteenth century. The See house for the diocese of Ripon, one of the first new dioceses in 1836, appears to be rare in being purpose-built. Interestingly, its external appearance immediately brings to mind its medieval predecessors, with its castellations and sprawling size (Fig. 29). This suggests it was some time before the Commissioners began to downgrade the splendour of the bishops’ houses, despite their limited budget and other commitments. Nevertheless, the newly sourced houses of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were naturally very different to those that had been created in past centuries by wealthy prelates.

Fig. 29: Ripon Bishop’s Palace, built in 1836 when the diocese was established.

Ownership of Bishops’ Palaces

Throughout most of their history, the bishops’ palaces have been owned by the diocese in which they stand. They were constructed with the income of the diocese, derived from their estates, and sometimes supplemented with the personal income of individual bishops.

They then passed down to each successive bishop, for his use for the duration of his time in office. Until the nineteenth century, the only interruptions to this line of ownership were in the late sixteenth century, when some properties were sacrificed to the Crown, and in the seventeenth century, when some were taken over by Parliamentarians during the Civil War.

33

However, the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1836 heralded the beginnings of a change in ownership for the bishops’ palaces and diocesan estates. One of the principal reasons for the decision to create such a body was to address the issue of the Church’s unwieldy property portfolio which, as already discussed, was seen increasingly as a burden and embarrassment. Though greatly reduced over the centuries, the Church was nevertheless in possession of “a mass of historic endowments for a variety of church offices which dated back in many cases to the Middle Ages and into which hardly anyone had ever attempted to introduce much rationality.” (Chadwick, 1986:3).

At first, land and endowments remained with the diocese while the Ecclesiastical Commissioners introduced some management measures. They placed a cap on income so that, instead of the entire wealth derived from produce and rents remaining in the diocese with the bishop, he received a set, equal amount and any excess income was pooled by the Commissioners and redistributed. By 1860, a new system was introduced in a revised Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act, whereby the diocesan estates were transferred to the ownership of the Commissioners who would afterwards either pay the full stipend of the bishop or re-endow enough land to produce the income he required (Brown, 1944:37-38; Elloy, 2005:4). Generally, the option of monetary income was taken by the bishop as this enabled him to focus his attention on his other duties, rather than management of his estates, while the onus of ownership and thus management, went to the Commissioners.

However, it was the introduction of the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure in 1943 which was the most significant development to happen to the management of the bishops’ palaces. This basically served to complete the process of “disendowing” the bishops which had begun with the establishment of Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Elloy 2005:4). It stipulated that ownership of all the bishops’ houses was to be entrusted in the Commissioners, who would then be responsible for their maintenance, whilst providing each bishop with his stipend. The Measure reportedly “owed its genesis in the main to the bishops themselves” (Elloy, 2005:4). It was thought that this would relieve the financial pressure being experienced by many of the bishops, who were now often without family wealth and therefore struggling to stretch their stipends to cover maintenance of their houses as well as other costs.

Shortly after the introduction of the new Measure, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were merged with the Queen Anne’s Bounty to create the Church Commissioners. Both groups had responsibilities in disposing of, providing and maintaining clergy housing so their formation was an attempt to once again streamline the administrative side of the Church and its assets (Church of England, 1933:4). The Church Commissioners continued the task begun by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, taking over ownership and carrying out assessments of the palaces. This took until 1960 to complete. In that time 19 bishops’ houses were deemed to be unsuitable and were, accordingly, replaced while many others were brought up to suitable, modern standards (Elloy, 2005:5).

34

By the twentieth century, therefore, the situation of the bishops’ palaces had evolved considerably since the medieval period. Now all in the ownership of a central body, the remaining buildings represented many phases of development. The Church Commissioners held palaces with medieval origins, created in a period where the bishops were some of the most powerful men in England with houses to match their status and accommodate their large retinues, and an income substantial enough to maintain these buildings. They held great houses extensively rebuilt and remodelled in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more contained than the sprawling medieval palaces, but still substantial enough in size to have accommodated servants and allowed bishops of those times to carry out their multifaceted role of generous hospitality and staid administration.

Finally, they held comparatively restrained houses, of more recent date and smaller size, acquired for modern bishops with smaller households and a signiďŹ cantly changed role and realm of inuence.

35

3.

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY CONTEXT

The previous section brought the development of the bishops’ palaces up to the twentieth century. This section provides an overview of where the Church stands today and the present perceptions of it. This includes the institution as a whole, the Church Commissioners for their part in the management of its resources, and the bishops and their houses. The discussion of the houses includes reference not only to those presently in use, but also those that have been made redundant as See houses and gone on to other, varying uses. The second chapter of this section discusses the present conservation context and the relevance of this to the bishops’ palaces. This includes not only an explanation of the statutory designations and implications, but also the threats to the buildings as perceived by those groups with conservation concerns.

3.1

The Church of England Today

The Church’s General Position

As the historical summary which began this thesis made evident, the influence of the Church today is significantly decreased from what it was in previous centuries. Although a National Statistics report on religion for 2008-2009 suggested that 72% of the population continue to identify as Christian, only 32% of that figure consider themselves to be practising (Communities and Local Government, 2010:34-35). Despite an increase in other religions, such as Muslim and Sikh, the highest proportion of respondents after Christians identified themselves as non-religious, reflecting a society in which organised religion has become less relevant. However, the fact that 72% of people call themselves Christian, even if not all are practising, suggests a sense of identification with their Christian heritage and traditions, potentially including an interest in the historic buildings of the Church.

The decrease in influence of the Church has inevitably had implications for its income over time. Quite aside from the historic confiscation of lands and ending of the tithe system, in more recent years the reduction in church-goers has reduced the income from church plate collections. The Archbishops’ Council Financial Committee report for 2000-2009 indicated a relative increase in monetary giving from parishioners from previous years (Archbishops’ Council, 2011:1); however, if church attendance continues to decline, the net income from this avenue will decrease, even if individual givers are more generous. The current economic climate has had a negative impact on the Church’s investment portfolio but this still provides a continued source of income, as do rents received from its extensive property holdings. The Church has also managed to increase their income at cathedrals, following a decision by many to charge entrance fees to tourists during times when worship is not in progress. The revenue from this is complemented by an increasingly commercial approach to the hire of their facilities (Archbishops’ Council, 2011:6).

36

The Church Commissioners

The Church Commissioners play a central role in the management and distribution of the Church’s finances and therefore its ability to fund its ministry. They are, in effect, the businessmen of the Church, who keep it operating on that level, freeing up the Church “to serve more freely the people of England” (Brown, 1944:19). They are today made up of six bishops and 27 lay people. The numerous duties of the Commissioners are divided into six committees, all overseen by the Board of Governors. These deal with many aspects of the administration of the Church, including internal and external finances, appointments and governance, pastoral organisation and its investment portfolio. In addition to the various areas for which they are responsible, 17p out of every pound earned by the Church Commissioners is contributed towards the costs of the Church of England’s mission (Church of England, 2012).

The committee responsible for management, resourcing and assessment of the bishops’ palaces is the Bishoprics and Cathedrals Committee. Their full remit, as described on the Church of England website, is “bishops’ staffing and working costs, diocesan bishops’ housing and grants towards cathedrals’ lay staff costs” (Church of England, 2012).

However, they are only responsible for a building while it remains a See house. If a decision is made to move a bishop out and source a new house, the redundant building becomes part of the Church Commissioners’ overall property portfolio. Once it is subsumed within that, decisions about its future revert to the Assets Committee, who will consider whether to retain it for another Church use, lease it or sell it (Elloy, 2005:16). The Church Commissioners do not play any part in the provision of housing for the suffragan (or assistant) bishops, who are instead catered for by the relevant dioceses.

The Bishops

The leadership organisation of the Church has remained much the same since the medieval period, with the exception being that the head (or rather, Supreme Governor) is now the monarch, rather than the Pope. However, this is principally a symbolic role and, in real terms, the relational structure of bishops remains unchanged since the Reformation, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Primate of All England in partnership with the Archbishop of York as the Primate of England. The number of diocesan bishops has increased, now numbering 44 (including the Bishop of the Diocese in Europe). Some dioceses have suffragan bishops, who assist the diocesan bishops in defined areas. The current suffragan offices have all been created or revived from the Victorian period onwards, though there were instances of this arrangement earlier in the Church’s history.

The Church has its own system of government, known as General Synod which includes a House of Bishops, on which a small group of bishops sit.

Although the role of the diocesan bishops has changed somewhat over time, in essence, it remains to oversee his diocese in a pastoral and administrative capacity. The consecration service for a bishop calls him “chief pastor”, a role in which he is expected to uphold and guard the faith of the Church, to teach and govern, ordain new ministers and support existing clergy in his diocese, confirm new Church members, and “to have special care of the outcast and needy” (Church Commissioners, 2011:1-2). In an administrative capacity, he has responsibility for the management of several hundred staff, including clergy and lay

37

people, as well as oversight of the diocese’s budget and property portfolio, although he is assisted in these tasks by other members of the diocese. He sits on a number of boards, both as part of the diocese and otherwise, and chairs regular meetings of the Bishop’s Council and diocesan Synod. He is also, as his predecessors were, expected to engage in charity and hospitality, residing over ordinations, hosting retreats for ordinands, taking part in festivals, dedications, pilgrimages, formal visitations, and any number of other events of a religious and non-religious nature, formal and informal, organised by the diocese or other community groups. Nationally, some bishops sit in the House of Bishops or are Church Commissioners. Along with the two Archbishops, 24 diocesan bishops sit in the House of Lords.

Despite the great demands of his position and active involvement on boards and groups focused on all manner of areas, the perceived relevance of the bishops to society as a whole has declined along with the Church. In previous centuries they have been, in good times, respected and, in bad times, lambasted for failing in their pastoral duties. Though still respected by most in the Church community, the wider community tends to have a general disregard for them, questioning their significance (Beeson, 2002:1). When they comment on politics they are often criticised for their stance, which is generally steeped in Christian thought and philosophy, and therefore seen by many as outmoded and conservative. Even when they are liberal-minded and progressive, they often face criticism, from within the Church body as well as from lay people.

Bishops’ Houses

As it always has, the bishop’s house must firstly serve as a home. The household size of a modern bishop is drastically reduced from that of his predecessors, who would have had the large retinue of servants required to maintain a large house. An official residence must, however, be able to cater for variation as different bishops will naturally have different family situations, including children or elderly parents. The issue of the division between public and private space is also a key consideration in considering the domestic role of a bishop’s palace. Although the very earliest of the buildings would have had a less distinct divide, as already explained, the changing social and architectural trends have introduced a clear division of space in subsequent centuries. However, the assurance of this clear-cut differentiation between private and public continues to be a concern and has been the focus of improvement works undertaken to bishops’ palaces in recent years (Elloy, 2005:5).

As the basic elements of a bishop’s role remain as they have for centuries, with pastoral care, administration and hospitality all fundamental, so he still requires a place from which to enact all these duties. Prime among these is sufficient space in order to provide hospitality, a duty which is still considered to be “fundamental to a bishop’s ministry” (Elloy, 2005:10). The type of hospitality provided by a bishop is defined as “the ministry of welcome, which is related to that hospitality enjoined on all Christians in the New Testament and which bears little resemblance to its secular use in the term ‘corporate hospitality’” (Archbishops’ Council, 2001:xvi). As historically, therefore, a bishop will be carrying out hospitality not only for diplomatic reasons, but principally as part of his pastoral role. He needs to be equipped for hospitality on every level and in every form.

The perceived requirements of a bishop’s house to enable him to carry out this and other roles is elaborated upon in the next section.

38

The earliest bishops were expected to make a forceful impression on the general public with their houses, but the ambition of the Church and its leaders today is to come across as more accessible. As such, a bishop’s residence today would more appropriately be a house than a palace, and ideally located in an accessible location. To accommodate all its required functions, it may still need to be a relatively large house, but certainly not with battlements and drawbridges.

Responsibility for the bishops’ houses, as already explained, continues to be with the Church Commissioners. They determine what property is used as a See house and provide the funding for it. The original system of bishops paying rent to the Church Commissioners was abandoned for some time but legal See house agreements have been reintroduced in the past decade, meaning that the Church Commissioners pay a bishop’s stipend and he pays back a certain figure as rent (Elloy, 2005:5). All but one of the present See houses are owned by the Church Commissioners, with the exception being that of the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. The Commissioners took the step a couple of years ago of selling it to the Minster Chapter, and now lease part of the building for use by the bishop. Prior to the sale, the Minster Chapter had been making use of part of the building for its song school, while the building was otherwise divided between the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham’s residence, residential flats and diocesan offices.

The Great Hall was, and still remains, available for public hire (Butler, 2010:9). This sale has enabled the Commissioners to retain one of their historic houses with less associated costs and management; in their words, it has “reduced the Commissioners’ liabilities, enabled the Minster to secure the future of its song school, and provided extra residential accommodation” (Church Commissioners, 2010:7).

There are 45 buildings in use as bishops’ residences today. This number is drastically reduced from the medieval, or even from the Tudor period, when there is estimated to have been 177 habitable bishops’ residences for only 22 dioceses (Hembry, 1978:146).

Although a bishop is still very much required to be on the move in his role, he does not require, nor can he afford, the multiple residences of his predecessors. Today, the

Fig. 30: The continued occupation of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace (right), across the river from Westminster and the Houses of Parliament (left), is a strong reminder of the connection between Church and State, even if the view is more cluttered today than it was in the nineteenth century.

39

Archbishop of York and each diocesan bishop has a single See house. The Archbishop of Canterbury retains both his See house in his cathedral city and his London house, Lambeth Palace (Fig.30, p.39). The full list of houses is provided in Appendix A. Most of the present See houses do not have an historic association with a bishop, with figures given by the Church Commissioners in a 2005 report indicating that 33 of the current residences are replacements which have been provided over the course of the last century (Elloy, 2005:3). Since that report, another three historic properties have ceased to be See houses – Hartlebury Castle, in the Diocese of Worcester; Rose Castle, in the Diocese of Carlisle; and Auckland Castle, in the Diocese of Durham.

Disused Houses

The fates of the other palaces which existed in the medieval and Tudor periods are mixed.

As the historic summary in the previous section explained, a great number were lost in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and have since been either left to ruin or continued in secular ownership. More recently, some medieval bishops’ palaces have taken on new life as museums, enabling public access to these historic buildings. A number of others have been converted for institutional use, such as schools and care homes. Others are in private ownership or commercial use, such as hotels. In some instances of re-use, the buildings have been sold on to new owners, but a good number of those relinquished in more recent times are still in the Church’s ownership and under a long-term lease. To trace the fate of all the bishops’ palaces would be virtually impossible and beyond the scope of this study.

However, a brief glance at some of the new uses which have been adopted is of some interest.

An example of a bishop’s house which has been adapted for use as a museum and function centre is Farnham Castle, a former residence of the Bishop of Winchester (Fig. 31). This building, with origins dating back to the twelfth century, required substantial rebuilding

Fig. 31: Farnham Castle in the eighteenth century. Its appearance remains much the same today.

40

Fig. 32: The timeline on the Farnham Castle website. An HLF grant enabled the castle to improve its educational facilities.

after the Restoration, but was then much used up until the nineteenth century and received attractive Georgian restoration to the interiors. As mentioned already, it became the residence of the Bishops of Guildford following the formation of that diocese in 1927. In 1962, it ceased to be the bishop’s residence though the decision was taken by the Church Commissioners to retain ownership. It has since been leased by a group who operate it as the Farnham Castle International Briefing and Conference Centre. It is available for hire for functions and also houses a small museum on the history of the building (Fig. 32). This educational use entitled them to apply for Heritage Lottery Funding, and the subsequent grant has not only enabled them to improve their facilities but has also gone towards wider restoration works. Farnham is thus an example of an opportunity being seized to allow greater public access to the building than existed previously.

Two examples of buildings which are now in institutional use are Salisbury and Ely Bishop’s Palaces, both located in their cathedral cities. Both were transferred to new use within the same decade, Ely shortly before the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, and Salisbury shortly after. Ely Palace (Fig. 33, p.42) is still owned by the Church Commissioners but is on a long lease which commenced in 1941, when it became a British Red Cross convalescents’ home, and then boarding school for handicapped children. However, it was eventually found to be too expensive for them to stay, and the lease was transferred to Sue Ryder for use as a nursing home. This lasted until 2009 when, again, the costs of upkeep were seen to be too great. The lease has since been taken by King’s School Ely, who have received Listed Building Consent to carry out conversions for use by the school, which will remove many of the modern alterations and enable a better appreciation of the building. At Salisbury Palace (Fig. 34, p.42), the existing Cathedral choir school was relocated to the palace on the suggestion of the bishop in 1947. The bishop, in turn, moved into the mid-seventeenth-century South Canonry, also within the cathedral close. Both the bishop and the school have remained in their new residences since, although the school has outgrown its accommodation and so has expanded to other buildings. Recently, the Cathedral Chapter commissioned a masterplan for the close,

41

Fig. 33: An aerial view of Ely Bishop’s Palace. The coloured area shows the extent of its grounds.

Fig. 34: Salisbury Bishop’s Palace prior to the Cathedral choir school moving in.

42

in which alternative locations for the school have been considered which might free up the old bishop’s palace for other uses by the Chapter. These two instances show some of the difficulties which may be encountered when bishops’ palaces are adopted for institutional use. Although proud buildings to inhabit, for a charity they prove costly, and for an institution liable to growth, they may prove limiting, despite their apparent massive size. Though an institution such as a school, which requires large spaces, might be able to use the building with little alteration, other potential users, such as a residential home, will need to make extensive alterations before they can use it – expensive for them and potentially damaging to the historic fabric of the building.

Fig. 35: Buckden Palace in 1730. The building has now been reduced to its turreted gatehouse.

Finally, probably indefinable numbers of the known medieval bishops’ palaces are now fully or partially in ruins. On occasion, these have been incorporated into later buildings or, where parts of the ruins were sound and could be consolidated, that smaller part has been claimed for a new use. Buckden Towers, in Cambridgeshire, is an instance where new life has been found for a ruin. This fortified residence of the Bishops of Lincoln was originally a great, sprawling palace (Fig. 35) but, as the name suggests, has now been reduced to little more than its towers. However, this is still a substantial building and has, since 1947, accommodated a retreat and conference centre run by Claretian monks.

This has the added interest of being a new function which has allowed it to continue as a Christian, spiritual place. There are also instances of the buildings being managed as romantic ruins, such as had occurred at Lincoln, where the remains of the palace beside the cathedral are now managed by English Heritage.

43

3.2

Conservation Context

Statutory Protection

Although many of the original bishops’ palaces have been replaced, there are still a number of historic buildings in use, some of which are statutorily listed. 22 of the bishops’ palaces are included on the list of buildings of historic and architectural interest, of which 11 have medieval origins. Some also have Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Registered Parks and Gardens closely associated with them.

The listed bishops’ houses are given below, along with their period of origin. Some further detail is provided in Appendix A. A number of these also have other listed structures associated with them, such as gates, walls and garden structures. This is particularly the case with the properties of the earliest date. Note also that the Church Commissioners define ten of the present residences as “historically significant” (Archbishops’ Review Group, 2001:264). This includes all the Grade I listed buildings, with the exception of the London See house.

Grade I: • The Palace, Wells – medieval.

• The Old Palace, Canterbury – medieval.

• Lambeth Palace (Canterbury’s London house) – medieval.

• The Palace, Chichester – medieval.

• The Bishop’s House, Ely – medieval.

• The Palace, Exeter – medieval.

• The Palace, Peterborough – medieval.

• Bishopthorpe Palace (York’s See house) – medieval.

• Bishop’s Manor, Southwell – medieval.

• The Old Deanery, London – seventeenth century.

• Wolvesey Palace, Winchester – seventeenth century.

Grade II*: • Bishop’s Palace, Hereford – medieval.

• Bishopscourt, Rochester – medieval.

• Abbey Gate House, St Albans – Regency.

Grade II: • Willow Grange, Guildford – sixteenth century.

• South Canonry, Salisbury – seventeenth century.

• 10 College Yard, Worcester – seventeenth century.

• Bishop’s Croft, Birmingham – Georgian.

• Bishop’s House, Chester – Georgian.

• The Bishop’s House, Lichfield – Georgian.

• Old Rectory, Bristol – Victorian.

• Bishopsgrove, Portsmouth – Victorian.

44

Many of the former bishops’ palaces which have been sold or let on a long-lease by the Church Commissioners are also listed or subject to other heritage protection. All those buildings discussed in the previous section, Farnham, Salisbury, Ely, Buckden Towers and Lincoln Old Palace are listed at Grade I. In addition, all three of the historic properties which were noted above as recent disposals – Rose, Auckland and Hartlebury – are Grade I listed buildings. Both Hartlebury and Auckland have a registered garden or park associated with them, and Auckland has a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its grounds. The list of designations by no means ends there.

The high rate of listing for these buildings, particularly those with medieval origins, is well-justified as they are certainly incredibly significant both for their rich historical associations and fine architecture. Historically, they are of value as they are testament to the power of the Church and the bishops in the medieval period, and therefore enable a greater understanding of how society functioned at that time. It is difficult from a modern perspective to appreciate the position which bishops held in the past, but these great buildings survive as indisputable, accessible evidence of the role that they had in governing and shaping society. The buildings are also important for what they reveal about the development of architectural techniques, form and style, particularly because all the medieval buildings have undergone subsequent additions and alteration, thereby providing a snapshot of changes to architecture encapsulated in individual buildings. Architecturally, most of the palaces are of high quality design and workmanship, similar to royal palaces, as the bishops were able to afford the best and, as has been mentioned, were expected to display their prestige. As such, they also hold great aesthetic value, in addition to historic value in displaying changing tastes. The importance of the buildings is especially high when they continue to serve as bishops’ residences, maintaining the episcopal connection as, not only are secular buildings of medieval origin reasonably rare, but even more so ones which continue in their original use. This continuity of this episcopal function not only imbues the buildings with a strong spiritual value, but enables a better understanding of them than if they had been converted to new use.

The purpose of listing is not only to acknowledge the significance of a building, but to ensure that its special qualities are preserved and enhanced. A building which is on the statutory list is protected by law under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Further guidance on planning in relation to listed buildings and heritage assets in general is currently to be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (adopted March 2012), while local authorities will have their own further guidance. The Planning Act stipulates that “no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised” (1990:Clause 7). Legally, therefore, listed building consent must be obtained from the local authority before works, internally or externally, are carried out.

When works pertain to a Grade I or Grade II* listed building (which many of the bishops’ palaces are), English Heritage must be consulted on listed building consent applications.

Relevant amenities societies must also be informed of any applications in case they wish to make a response. The societies consulted are selected according to the age of the building, but as the oldest bishops’ palaces generally have several phases of works to them, it is likely that either the Georgian Group or the Victorian Society may become involved in addition to the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings or the Ancient Monuments Society.

45

Listed building status does not, however, protect against every threat which may face an historic building. It does not secure it against dilapidations and, indeed, increases the cost for the owner carrying out routine repairs. They will often be required to use specific materials, particularly on Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings, and they may have to enlist specialist practitioners. The high costs incurred may deter an owner from carrying out all but the most essential works. This is likely to lead to a gradual decline in condition, which in turn may result in damage to features of historic and architectural interest. For the Church Commissioners, the accumulated costs across their portfolio of historic bishops’ palaces is considerable. When their funding is required for matters which are felt to be more important to their mission, this may lead to non-urgent works being assigned low priority. Additionally, it has inevitably given rise to the question of whether the buildings can be afforded and if they should be sold off. Although change of use from, for instance, residential to commercial, requires planning permission, something which listing certainly does not protect against is change of ownership.

Conservation Concerns

It is change of ownership and its implications, over which there is no definitive statutory protection, which is one of the biggest concerns in terms of conservation for bishops’ palaces. Nor is this a recent issue but has, rather, come up time and again over the past century, as the protection of our heritage has gained increasing attention. As far back as 1942, Country Life magazine published an article entitled “The Future of Bishops’ Palaces”. This followed an article on secular country houses, which were also in a precarious position at that time. It pondered if and how the finest of the episcopal residences could be retained in the face of rising costs for the bishops (Hussey, 1942:510).

The article appeared before the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, which would subsequently relieve the pressure on the individual bishops, though not the Church as a whole. It offered suggestions on how the buildings could be self-sustaining while the bishop remained in residence, a proposal which would be picked up again and again throughout the twentieth century, and which has emerged again in recent years.

Today, many groups at both local and national level have expressed concerns over the future of bishops’ palaces. The aforementioned recent decisions regarding Auckland, Hartlebury and Rose Castles have over the past few years drawn negative attention.

Locally, protest has come not only from “friends” groups or dedicated trusts, but also the wider communities, particularly so at Auckland Castle, where the building lies at the heart of a fairly deprived town. The public umbrage at the actions of the Church Commissioners made itself clear in a series of outraged comments in the local newspaper, The Northern Echo (Merrick, 2010). Nationally, they have caught the attention of amenity and conservation groups, media from the BBC to, again, Country Life magazine, and have even inspired heated debate in the House of Lords. People are not just concerned about what the implications of a sale might mean for the physical fabric of the building. They are also concerned about the implications of the Church selling its buildings and breaking what is, in some cases, a centuries’ old episcopal connection. It has been argued that “the Church’s patrimony of buildings and art is essential to the physical and metaphorical fabric of the nation.” (House of Lords, 2011:1476) In 1904, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings suggested that the proposed sale of Hartlebury back then, although it

46

wasn’t threatened with demolition, would set a precedent for further sales (SPAB, 190262). Although the decision on Hartlebury was reversed then, precedents have nevertheless been set elsewhere and the past hundred years have seen the sale of many of the Church’s historic buildings. With so few of the bishops’ palaces left, the current situation is becoming increasingly like the sale of vicarages by dioceses in the 1960s and ‘70s. This occurred when dioceses sought to shed themselves of what were considered to be surplus and inconvenient vicarages. Inevitably, however, it led to later regret at the loss of fine historic and otherwise valuable buildings (Aslet, 2011).

There is also the fear that private or commercial ownership will forever remove the possibility of these important buildings being open and available for the appreciation, enjoyment and enrichment of the public. The accusation has been raised by many groups that the Church Commissioners, in their assessment of these buildings, have been too narrow-minded, too financially driven, and have failed to engage with their historic importance (Robinson, 2006:106; Bargery, 2010; Aslet, 2011). There is the feeling that the Commissioners have displayed a lack of transparency and failed to conduct proper consultations with local interest groups. They have therefore not appreciated the value the buildings might have for the local and wider community or given local groups - of which there is no shortage - the opportunity to run the buildings as public assets (House of Lords, 2011:1474). The Church Commissioners, many feel, should take more responsibility for these historic buildings and treat them as the nation’s property (Robinson, 2006:106; House of Lords, 2011:1485). They need to recognise that they have stewardship, rather than ownership and free-rein to sell them off as they will and to whoever might be willing to offer them the best price. This brings to mind the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings’ philosophy that each generation should see themselves as the guardians, not owners, of buildings, with a duty to protect them for future generations.

47

4.

FIT FOR PURPOSE?

It cannot be denied that the finances of the Church are finite and that they have a responsibility to target the areas of greatest need. It is therefore reasonable for the Church to consider where they ought to take steps in reducing costs or, to view it in a more positive way, increasing available funds. The historic bishops’ houses are undeniably a drain on resources and, as was shown in the first section of this thesis, have presented financial concerns from at least as far back as the post-Reformation period, when the wealth and endowments of the Church suffered their first significant blow. It is therefore a legitimate approach for the Church Commissioners to carry out assessments on the viability of these buildings. Even if there were no pressing concerns about finances, a regular review of how buildings are meeting the requirements of their purposes is an advisable approach; indeed, it is their responsibility as stipulated by the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure to ensure each bishop has a suitable residence.

However, the medieval bishops’ palaces are incredibly significant, not just as architectural pieces, but for their historic connection to the Church and the nation’s history. As the previous section laid out, the numbers retained by the Church and kept in use have been reduced significantly over the course of the Church Commissioners’ ownership. Their criteria for assessment of whether a bishop’s palace is fit for purpose should therefore be considered. This section examines the current legislation and review policy of the Church Commissioners; that is to say, their obligations and methods for determining suitability.

This is followed by a series of case studies to demonstrate their practical approach. An assessment of the Church Commissioners’ approach, based on comparison of their policy and their actions in the case studies, finishes this section. An ambition to draw in the views of bishops to enrich this analysis was unfortunately not realised as interviewees proved elusive, despite some efforts. The opinions of the bishops is therefore derived only from a summary of previous surveys by the Church Commissioners.

48

4.1

The Church Commissioners’ Legislation

Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943

The most pertinent piece of legislation for the Church Commissioners in regard to their management of the bishops’ palaces is the Episcopal Endowment and Stipends Measure 1943. This was the first piece of legislation to cover the ownership and management of the bishops’ palaces and, as no subsequent legislation has superseded it, what is laid down in it still dictates the management of bishops’ houses today. The complete wording of the Measure is provided in Appendix B but a summary of the most pertinent points follows.

The introductory text of the Measure states its purpose as being: “To make provision for empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to take over the endowments and property of any see, to pay to the bishop of the diocese an appropriate stipend, to provide him a suitable residence, to accept responsibility in respect of certain stipends and other official expenses and to deal with any existing house of residence belonging to the see.”

(Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, 1943) Under Section 3, the Measure gives the Commissioners the right to make alterations to the property, if required, and let it back to the bishop. If, however, the Commissioners are at any time “of opinion that it is too large, or is not and cannot be made convenient, or is not required, for occupation by the bishop”, a number of alternatives are provided, subject to consultation with the Diocesan Advisory Committee. These include: • Transfer of the house to the diocesan authority for their use (subject to a mutual agreement being made with the diocese); • Conversion, in part or in full, for another use; • Sale or lease to an outside party; • Demolition, in part to reduce its overall volume, or in full.

If converting, the requirement to have regard to the “historical and other associations attaching to it” is stipulated. The consideration of archaeology and buildings of “historical and artistic interest” is elaborated further in Section 4, where it is stated that the Commissioners are required to consider the consequences of the exercise of any of the above rights and to consult with the Ancient Monuments Board for England (now English Heritage). It notes that they should also consider “what restrictive or other conditions, if any, should be imposed upon a purchaser or lessee.” Note that there is no reference to listed buildings as the Measure predates the present formalised, legal system of recognition, but these considerations now additionally apply, as outlined in the previous section.

49

With the passing of this Measure, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners thus became responsible for determining whether the existing house occupied by each bishop was a “suitable residence”. As the legislation provides no actual definition for suitability, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners offered their own in their Memorandum for the Guidance of Bishops in 1945. This stated that a suitable residence would be “a house the necessity of occupying which at a rent payable to the Commissioners cannot reasonably be regarded by a clergyman without private means as an insuperable obstacle to acceptance by him of the See. It does not mean ‘ideal’ or ‘suited’ to the ideas of any particular occupant of the See” (quoted in Elloy, 2005:5). This, in itself, is not much more useful, giving only a vague financial guide. Unfortunately, the original document was not able to be consulted in the research for this thesis so it is not known if there were any further stipulations, but the reviews carried out in later years suggest not.

50

4.2

The Church Commissioners’ Guidance

In an effort to clearly define suitability, in 1975 the Church Commissioners carried out consultations with the bishops and their spouses to form a picture of the common requirements of a residence. Up until this point, the Commissioners had encountered a number of problems in dealing with the bishops and attempting to carry out balanced assessments of the houses (Chandler, 2006). It was hoped that the responses of bishops could be gathered together and assessed in order to lay down a robust and definitive set of criteria for a suitable property. This would hopefully make the matter of See houses less susceptible to the whims of the occasional demanding individual bishop.

The outcome of the review was a set of guidelines, stating specific room requirements, which would be used to judge the suitability of present bishops’ houses and enable the sourcing of new ones. These included the size of the dining room, kitchen and drawing/ meeting room required for hospitality; the rooms required for the bishop’s administration and ministry, including personal study, offices for support staff and chapel; the number of bedrooms, including provision for family and for guests (this amounted to six in total); and a sitting room expressly for private use. In terms of the grounds, these should be limited and simply laid out for ease of maintenance. The other outcome of the report was the revelation that, when the results were tallied together, the ideal bishop’s house bore more similarities to the new houses built for recently established dioceses or those built to supersede older houses (Chandler, 2006:265). When the guidance is laid down in such simple terms as room numbers and functions, without regard given to more intangible considerations, this result is of little surprise.

‘Resourcing Bishops’ and ‘Resourcing Archbishops’

In 1999, independent reports were commissioned by the Archbishops’ Review Group to carry out a new assessment of the needs of bishops, with recommendations on how to approach their resourcing in the future. The ambition of these reports, entitled Resourcing Bishops and Resourcing Archbishops, was to consider the issues from a range of perspectives, including theological, personal, practical and financial. This would lead to suggestions for a system of management which was flexible enough to realise the varying needs of bishops.

The general observations of the reports did not differ greatly from the 1975 consultations.

Hospitality was once again recognised as a key part of the bishop’s ministry, best offered from his own home. Part of the reason for this was because it was felt that if a bishop and his wife were seen to be making their homes available as a shared resource, there would be less negative perceptions about the house. However, the bishop’s role was recognised to be a full and stressful one, requiring allowance for adequate time for rest and reflection – not only for his own well-being but to enable him to carry out his role properly. Private spaces and facilities such as chapels therefore perform a vital function. Regarding the question of having a bishop’s office at his house or in a separate location (generally within the diocesan offices), there were observed to be both pros and cons for both situations but the interesting revelation was that the majority of bishops – 87% – felt that their current situation, whichever it was, suited them best (Archbishops’ Review Group, 2001:19.26.2). The

51

image of the See houses was felt to sometimes be negative, which consequently created a hindrance to a bishop’s ministry due to the impression of “distance and separation” (Archbishops’ Review Group, 2001:19.10). However, a large historic house was actually seen as less problematic than a substantial, detached modern house as there is “an aspect of perceived class-neutrality to a historic See house, as to a historic rectory” (Archbishops’ Review Group, 2001:19.10-11).

Although the existing guidelines on determining the suitability of See houses had been reaffirmed in 1995, one of the recommendations of the Resourcing Bishops report was that the Church Commissioners should carry out a reappraisal. It was suggested that particular regard be given not only to practical issues, but also more abstract and, as such, controversial and debated concerns. These were to include the implications of the image conveyed to the public by the most extravagant examples and what special considerations ought to be given to the “heritage properties”. The report defines these as Lambeth Palace and the See houses of Bath and Wells, Canterbury, Carlisle (Rose Castle), Chichester, Durham (Auckland Castle), Ely, Exeter, Hereford, Peterborough, Southwell, Winchester, Worcester (Hartlebury Castle) and York. Note that this report pre-dated the decommissioning of Rose, Auckland and Hartlebury Castles. The report also recommended that every effort should be made to manage these historic See houses as income-producing assets. If in any instance this was attempted and failed, and if it was decided not to keep an unsuitable and unviable house as Church property, the Commissioners should seek to transfer the properties to a heritage trust to operate the house. To enable this, a recommendation was made for modification of their obligation to seek the best financial return from sale of assets (Review Group, 2001:19.39).

‘The Strategic Review of See Houses’

In response to the Resourcing Bishops report, a review was carried out of the existing guidelines by the Bishoprics and Cathedrals Committee in tandem with the Assets Committee. The aims of the review were stated to be to consider factors including the legal and historical background of the buildings, analysis of present and projected future costs and value, the current and likely future requirements for the suitability of the house and its grounds, and the implications of “heritage considerations” which might have an impact on developing a uniform strategy (Elloy, 2005:1-2). The principles laid down in the report have now been adopted as the Church Commissioners’ approach for reviews (Hudson, 2012).

The involvement of the Assets Committee in carrying out the review makes clear that the financial implications of the buildings are considered to be a vital part in determining their viability. The report states that the Church Commissioners are under no defined obligation to ensure that a return is made on a building if it is considered to be a suitable See house and that “any decision taken by the Commissioners will not be wholly financially driven, but will be properly informed financially” (Elloy, 2005:15). However, it also reiterates that the bishops’ palaces do not stand alone as their sole financial consideration and they have a responsibility to ensure that their other commitments are served properly, particularly given the current financial pressures to which the Church is having to respond. The report

52

draws attention back to the Church Commissioners’ obligation, which has been reiterated in every Measure and Act subsequent to the establishment of the Queen Anne’s Bounty, that is to make provision for the “cure of souls” in poor parishes (Elloy, 2005:6).

The report defines a See house as “both a home and suitable base from which a bishop can conduct his ministry” (Elloy, 2005:14). Throughout, the emphasis is on the ability of the bishop to carry out his role without undue hindrance as a result of his accommodation, with other considerations secondary to this. The report also repeatedly makes the point that the definition of suitability is liable to change, as it has done so over the course of the centuries since the earliest of the bishops’ palaces were constructed. As it states, “the history of the See house is one of evolution, and the consistent theme which runs throughout is that the house is ‘fit for purpose’.” (Elloy, 2005:14-15) As in 1975, consultations were carried out with bishops, their wives, and staff who worked in the buildings. The new findings were much as is in the previous survey with similar requirements identified to cater to a bishop’s personal, pastoral and administrative needs.

As always, hospitality was considered to be a key role. However, the scale of space for functions was often not necessarily required to be particularly significant, as large events were less frequent and could always be accommodated outdoors or in other diocesan facilities. The general sense was that the bishop made use of the facilities available in a way that was logical and that the house “quite clearly affected the way in which [he] conducted his ministry (Elloy, 2005:14). For instance, a large state room would be used for a function because it would be foolish not to take advantage of such an asset, but that did not necessarily mean that most bishops wouldn’t be able to make do with a less extravagant room. Extensive gardens were mostly perceived to be of less need, with a general willingness to possibly sell off surplus land for development purposes, so long as some was retained for small functions. Although the Resourcing Bishops report did not draw a definite conclusion on office location, this consultation suggested that the ability for the bishop to work out of his house was important in enabling him to deal with the unconventional hours demanded by his duties. Most bishops are therefore reported to have been opposed to the idea of having their office relocated to the diocesan offices.

The results of the consultations also indicated some of the concerns and failings of bishops’ palaces. The need for clear division between private space and public space was reiterated as a major point, so that the domestic needs of the bishop and any family members could be met without being imposed upon by the public and office elements. Security was also seen to sometimes be an issue with city centre locations, particularly those located on cathedral closes as large open areas, suffering from antisocial elements. More remote houses could present issues when a bishop’s wife or staff were left alone as they often felt vulnerable.

Despite some concerns expressed over houses in central city locations, the report notes that there tended to be support for the retention of bishops’ residences in cathedral closes.

Firstly, these were conveniently positioned for the bishop, his family and staff, for travel reasons and for interaction with associated diocesan buildings in the close. Secondly, they were seen to be “a symbol of the Church’s commitment to the inner city and city

53

life” (Elloy, 2005:12). Opinions are not provided on houses in other locations but it may be fair to assume that a residence would generally be considered more suitable if it were easily accessible by public transport. This would not only be more convenient for staff and visitors, but would also cut down on costs for running and maintaining the bishop’s car.

A variety of views were taken by bishops and the other consultees on historic houses. The report suggests that the majority response was that the Church should not retain historic buildings that were too expensive to afford but it carries on to say that “rather than judge such a house by strict financial criteria, some suggested that a better test was whether the property proved to be an effective house for a bishop to live in and from which to conduct his ministry” (Elloy, 2005:11). In regards to costs, some felt that expensive houses might be able to be retained if they were able to generate income while others questioned the idea of having a bishop and his wife devote time to entrepreneurial concerns. The consultees observed that the image projected by the bishops’ palaces, particularly the historic, grandiose examples, was sometimes felt to be sending out wrong signals but this was often balanced by people in support of the bishop’s continued residence at a property. The respondents’ personal views on the significance of the buildings are not recorded, with the exception of noting that some observed that the historic houses have “a dimension that is both spiritual and historic, and these aspects of the house are often reflected in the bishop’s ministry” (Elloy, 2005:16).

The question of funding the bishops’ palaces was addressed, particularly in regard to making these buildings generate their own income. The Church Commissioners state that they should not, in principle, be engaged in entrepreneurial activities. However, they admitted that there were instances in which such an approach might be viable, so long as it did not impose on the bishop’s use of his house, and so long as it were carefully monitored. There was always the potential of setting up a dedicated Trust, which had been done on occasion, although the report suggests that the income generated from such a measure should in the first instance go towards setting off the maintenance costs, rather than purely towards making the site accessible to the public. The Church Commissioners also stated that a diocese should not be able to contribute to the costs of running a See house even if they expressed an interest in doing so in order to retain a building which had been deemed unsuitable. It was felt that this would lead to complications of management and would contravene the priority for a building to be functional for the bishop’s use.

Regarding diocesan control, the Church Commissioners had also successfully argued down a recommendation in Resourcing Bishops that ownership of all See houses should revert to individual dioceses, as they saw that this would be removing one of their key reasons for being.

Leading on from the assessment, the first recommendation of the review was the implementation of a management plan tailored to each individual house. These would enable a comparative assessment of the finances involved in each house as well as ensuring better stewardship through prescribed maintenance. The plan would be expected to cover a variety of considerations including: ensuring that the house and its land meet an “agreed standard” as both a home and base for ministry; ensuring that the house is fully equipped, including compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 where

54

possible; reviewing environmental and sustainability considerations and creating targets for improvement; consideration of support staff provision; review of maintenance and repair regimes, including one for the grounds; consideration of reducing the size of the grounds; and cataloguing and care of historic artifacts not part of the building itself.

The cost-effectiveness of these measures, such as staffing and maintenance would also be considered. Finally, the plan would include an assessment of “the development and income potential within the house and land and formulate an action plan to maximise that potential”, that is to say, determine whether the property could feasibly be profit-generating (Elloy, 2005:7).

Otherwise, the report found that, due to the wide variance in the existing bishops’ palaces, that strict criteria for carrying out assessments would not be beneficial. As such, it recommended “a set of general principles, rather than prescriptive guidelines” (Elloy, 2005:13). Although the stipulations on room requirements laid down in 1975 were acknowledged to be a useful tool for sourcing new houses, they should not necessarily strictly apply to the assessment of existing one. Instead, the following principles were put forward: a. Each house to have a ‘management plan’. The Commissioners will prepare this in liaison with the bishop, his spouse, and the local agent, and the plan will be reviewed cyclically. b. Once the bishop reaches the age of 62 years, discussions to determine the future of the house, e.g. need to sell or replace the house, bring it up to standard, etc, will be undertaken with him, his spouse and the diocese. c. The guidelines for suitability should not be regarded as prescriptive and certain houses might not meet the criteria in certain respects but their advantages would nevertheless outweigh their disadvantages. d. Each house should have a proper private/public divide. e. Each house should have adequate space for hospitality/meetings. f. Adequate study/office space should be provided for the bishop and his staff, together with adequate waiting areas, storage space, kitchen and cloakroom facilities. g. Proper security arrangements should be in place. h. Disabled access should be provided where possible. i. Staff housing should not be provided and, in those properties which contain integral or staff flats, a commercial return should be sought where possible. j. The particular needs of the diocese, as they bear upon the use of the See house, should be taken account of where possible.

In addition to these recommendations, the report provides some discussion on the matter of heritage properties. It presents the questions: “In considering the stewardship of these buildings, how does the Church balance the need to accept its inheritance of historic houses, to be used and handed on to the next generation, with the need to use its capital and income wisely? And, not least, how can these buildings be best used to support the bishop in promoting the mission of the Church in this generation?” (Elloy, 2005:4) They describe their historic buildings as being part of the nation’s cultural and historic fabric.

They acknowledge that their combination of “history, expectations and symbolism” will

55

represent different things to different people, some interested in the building largely in and of itself, some seeing it as a symbol of the continuity of the Church and its history, some as a spiritual base. Initially the report suggests that the buildings are representative of the “bishop’s temporal past as well as his spiritual role” and that the temporal element is attached to the building but that the spiritual element will move with the bishop (Elloy, 2005:3). It is the bishops’ wives, in the consultation process, that bring their attention to the propinquity or “theology of place” associated with these buildings.

The suggestion that propinquity should be considered in assessing the buildings is taken on board but admitted to be complicated and requiring a significant reconsideration of procedure. The implication of such an idea is that the spiritual purpose of the buildings is as significant as the practical purposes, putting them on par with churches and cathedrals.

Particular buildings could potentially be committed to in this way but the danger, as the Church Commissioners see it, is that this may conflict with the assessment of the buildings in line with the needs of the bishop. Naturally, there is also the consideration of the continued financial burden, but they comment that this could be addressed by engaging with local groups and embarking on a full commitment to making the retention of a building economically viable, or even selling the freehold to a Trust and leasing back part of it for the bishop. However, the discussion is left with the reassertion that the primary commitment of the Church Commissioners is to the bishop and his housing needs, with no obligation for safe-guarding the future of the buildings beyond consulting with English Heritage. They therefore reject the recommendation of the Resourcing Bishops report in respect of revising the existing procedures for disposal.

56

4.3

The Church Commissioners’ Practice – Case Studies

As it is often true that actions speak louder than words, this chapter provides a summary of the Church Commissioners’ actual approach to some of the See houses since the introduction of the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943. It presents examples of a medieval palace which was classed as unfit prior to the introduction of suitability guidelines (Fulham Palace); one which has been given the opportunity to prove itself capable of being self-sustaining (Wells Palace); and one which has very recently, under the new guidelines, been decommissioned as a See house (Hartlebury Castle). It finishes with a joint account of the other two historic See houses recently classified as unsuitable (Auckland and Rose Castles). These two cases are presented jointly in less depth as their situation is similar to Hartlebury, so a full account was deemed unnecessary, but they still merit inclusion in summary due to their topicality.

Diocese of London

The process which arrived at the current London See house was a rather complicated and expensive affair which demonstrates that the process of assessing and changing See houses was, without guidelines, susceptible to influence by particular personalities. The Church Commissioners facilitated the transfer of the Bishop of London’s residence from the medieval Fulham Palace in 1973, via other alternatives until settling on the present seventeenth-century residence near St Paul’s Cathedral. Fulham Palace is now a museum, operated by the charitable Fulham Palace Trust.

Fulham Palace (Fig. 36) has been described as “one of the best medieval domestic sites in London ... of far greater interest than might be expected from its undemonstrative exterior.” (Cherry, 1991:235) The main building is Grade I listed while the chapel, several outbuildings and the garden wall are covered by five separate Grade II listings. The whole site, to the extent of the now in-filled moat, is also covered as a Scheduled Ancient

Fig. 36: Fulham Palace from the east lawn. Victorian chapel at left with linking range, and Regency re-building to right.

57

Monument. The palace gardens are Grade II* registered while Bishop’s Park, which once formed part of the grounds, is Grade II. The present See house is the Old Deanery (Fig. 41, p.61) and is Grade I listed. The principal list descriptions are reproduced in Appendix C. In the medieval period, the main residence of the Bishop of London was to the north of St Paul’s Cathedral, while Fulham Palace was one of several country houses. Not until the eighteenth century did Fulham become the principal residence, but it had nonetheless been in the diocese’s almost continual ownership from 691, with the exception of a brief period in the Civil War. The change to permanent residence followed the demolition of large parts of the palace in 1715 which were considered “old and ruinous” by Bishop Robinson, and beyond his finances to maintain, while the remaining rooms would provide ample accommodation for a bishop’s needs (Venables, 1895:56).

The present building is formed around two courtyards. The eastern one is the older in form, dating to the medieval period, but the buildings around it have been much altered in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including the replacement of private quarters with the present large reception rooms. The chapel at the south end of the range was built in the nineteenth century to designs by the Gothic revivalist architect, William Butterfield. The library at the north end was fitted out in the early nineteenth century to house the books of Bishop Porteous, which were bequeathed to the palace upon his death in 1809 (Fig.38, p.59). He had said of Fulham that “there wants nothing but a good library to make it a complete episcopal mansion” (quoted in Venables, 1895:59). The west courtyard (Fig. 37), the larger of the two, dates to the sixteenth century, although the south range was remodelled by Bishop Blomfeld in the mid-nineteenth century. The buildings have also undergone much internal redecoration, particularly under Bishop Sherlock in the eighteenth century (Fig. 39, p.59).

Fig. 37: The west courtyard, facing towards the north range (left) and fifteenth-century hall (right).

58

Fig. 38: The Porteous Library, dating to the early nineteenth century.

Fig. 39: Bishop Sherlock’s drawing room, dating to the eighteenth century and recently restored.

Fig. 40: Bishop’s Park, formed from land granted to the public in the late nineteenth century. The palace can just be seen to the left, through the screening line of trees.

59

In addition to the buildings, the gardens at Fulham are considered to be an important site in the history of botany in England (Cherry, Pevsner, 1991:238). Bishop Compton was a particularly active garden enthusiast in the late seventeenth century, as were a number of the nineteenth-century bishops. In a philanthropic gesture, the demesne meadows between the palace and the Thames were granted to the public on the instruction of Bishop Jackson, and opened to the public as Bishop’s Park in 1893 (Fig. 40, p.59).

The bishop had retained a more centrally located residence in St James’s Square, Westminster in addition to Fulham, until this was leased and then sold off at the beginning of the twentieth century. When the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure came into place, Fulham Palace also came up for review. The mid-war Country Life article mentioned in the previous section suggested that “the wealth and importance of the See of London makes it most desirable that Fulham Palace should continue in its present use, to which it is admirably fitted” (Hussey, 1942:512). The Church Commissioners and diocese, however, saw it to be an unwieldy and difficult building at the best of times, and it had also suffered bomb damage in the war, leaving parts derelict. The suggestion was made by the then bishop that the See house should be relocated back to London so he could be in a more relevant location, and the Church could be rid of the burden of dealing with Fulham.

This was welcomed by the diocese, provided that Fulham Palace was not “abandoned to secular use” (Chandler, 2006:139). A search began for an appropriate location but plans for a move were soon abandoned. Instead, parts of the building were rented out to church organisations while the bishop’s accommodation was reduced. To accommodate the office use of the building, some valuable Georgian spaces were “horribly divided and subdivided” (Cherry, 1991:237).

Fulham was repeatedly classed as unfit for purpose as the See house in the mid-twentieth century but remained in use until appropriate alternative accommodation could be found.

Eventually, in 1973, a large town house became available in Cowley Street, Westminster.

Despite some reservations, it was acquired and renovated at some cost to be made appropriate for a bishop. Fulham Palace was transferred to the management of the local council with a hundred-year lease in 1975, although some Church-related companies remained in part-residence. The Council had approached the Church Commissioners with an interest in the building some 40 years earlier and now sought to turn it into a museum.

Meanwhile, a new bishop, Gerald Ellison, was appointed in 1973 and immediately took issue with the accommodation at Cowley Street, arguing that it was entirely too small and unsuitable for him to be able to carry out his role. He angrily informed the Church Commissioners that they must address these problems, in line with their statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation (Chandler, 2006:194). His demands pre-dated the formation of guidelines on suitability, when the only thing nearing a definition was the memorandum that followed the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, which required only that the rent should be within the means of a bishop subsisting on a stipend.

The neighbouring building on Barton Street became available during this period and was purchased to appease Ellison, despite the fact that significant amounts had just been spent on upgrading Cowley Street and more would need to be poured into the new See house.

60

Soon after, the Church Commissioners carried out their 1975 consultation in order to establish set guidelines for determining suitability, to address situations like what had occurred in the Diocese of London. Whether Bishop Ellison was justified in his arguments or simply had higher expectations for his accommodation, a set of guidelines was thought to be the solution. As already described, these would supposedly ensure that new houses could be robustly assessed to guarantee that they were fit for purpose before any move was made. If a future bishop objected to his accommodation, his arguments could be dismissed as personal taste and therefore not justifying a change.

However, when a new Bishop of London was appointed in 1981 and started arguing once again that the accommodation was insufficient, the Commissioners rose to the bait, entering into long discussions before starting to look for alternatives. None were found immediately but the unsuitability of the residence must have been confirmed with a subsequent assessment, which led to the acquisition of the Old Deanery neighbouring St Paul’s Cathedral in 1996 (Fig.41). This is an impressive red brick mansion of two storeys with a “loose and empirical” plan (Bradley, 1999:597). It is surprisingly secluded for a building in the heart of the City, as it is sited down a narrow court, although this undoubtedly becomes more rowdy at night as a result of the neighbouring youth hostel.

Fig. 41: The Old Deanery, which has served as the Bishop of London’s house since 1996.

61

As the Church Commissioners dealt with the issue of the new See house, Fulham Palace went through difficulties in establishing itself in a new use. A brief article published in London Architect in May 1981 revealed that plans to use it as a museum and activity centre had to be abandoned due to cuts in public expenditure. Difficulties in finding suitable alternatives were not assisted by the restrictive terms of the lease with the Church Commissioners. Other suggestions which fell within permitted use, such as conversion into a youth hostel, home for blind people or school for dyslexic children, were all considered by the Council to be untenable as the costs of conversion would be too great (Anon, 1981:5). If the experience of Ely was anything to go by, they were probably correct not to go in that direction. If a hostel or home were being considered, this suggests that the terms of the lease may have been restrictive in preventing broad commercial use, but not apparently in limitations to alterations which could be made to the building. The debates were ended when, in 1990, a Trust was established to instigate the opening of the building as a museum. This finally opened in 1992, almost 20 years after the last bishop left.

The issue of the London See house seems to have now finally been resolved in terms of both finding a suitable location for the bishop, and in providing a positive use for the historic Fulham Palace. The Old Deanery is conveniently located for the cathedral and within easy distance of the diocesan offices in Pimlico, while the building is suitably dignified for the third-ranking bishop in the Church of England, without being ostentatious.

Undoubtedly, it is of sufficient size to accommodate the enacting of his various duties, with overspill to the cathedral possible for larger events. It also has the advantage of having historic connections to the diocese, even if not until recently in an episcopal role.

Fulham Palace has finally settled into use as a museum and education centre, now run solely by the Fulham Palace Trust. They have received Heritage Lottery Funding to enable extensive restoration works both within the Palace and in the grounds, including the removal of much of the damaging mid-twentieth century works, and improvements to education and interpretation facilities (Fig. 42). Visitor access is currently free, although

Fig. 42: The education centre, newly converted from a Grade II listed stable block.

62

Fig. 43: The gate lodges beside the old moat. Both are being restored prior to being let.

a charge is made for guided tours. Income is derived from hiring out of facilities and training courses, with plans to lease out the generously sized gate lodges as residential buildings (Fig.43). The restoration of these has been made possible with a further grant from the Architectural Heritage Fund. All these improvement works have been carried out under a long-lease, while the Church Commissioners retain ownership of the building.

As such, the Commissioners receive ongoing income from the building, while the terms of the lease ensure that the current tenant has responsibility to maintain it in a ďŹ t state of repair (Anon, 1981). The retention of ownership and limited alterations to the fabric also mean that, if desired, the building could in theory return to use as a bishop’s palace or other Church use in the future.

However, the path to this point has not been smooth and the issues with the subsequent See houses following the decision to leave Fulham Palace indicate that new acquisitions are perhaps just as liable as historic assets to create problems. There are costs involved with sourcing and upgrading See houses, and the developments in the London Diocese are testament to the fact that careful consideration should be given before decisions are made to relinquish a See house. In theory, some of the issues pertaining to the London See house in the second half of the twentieth century should have been dealt with by the fact that revised principles of suitability have now been adopted by the Church Commissioners.

However, as those very guidelines express repeatedly, the requirements of a bishop are prone to change, leaving nothing guaranteed, even a seemingly robust solution like the one which has ďŹ nally emerged here.

63

Diocese of Bath and Wells

The medieval Bishop’s Palace at Wells today remains the residence of the bishop and is undoubtedly one of the finest of the episcopal residences. It is also something of an exemplar of how these buildings can progress in a positive way and respond successfully to the numerous challenges of the present day, as it has opened its doors to the public while retaining its episcopal use. It is described in the relevant volume of Pevsner as “without doubt the most memorable of all bishop’s palaces in England, combining high architectural interest with exquisite beauty of setting” (Foyle 2011: 674). Thompson calls it “perhaps the most rewarding see palace”, largely due to the fact that it still has a resident bishop but is also open to the public (Thompson 1998:49).

The site is covered by a series of listings. The extant palace buildings are listed Grade I in three parts – The Bishop’s Palace and Bishop’s House; The Bishop’s Chapel and Bishop’s Palace; and Bishop Burnell’s Great Hall (Fig. 44). These list descriptions are reproduced in Appendix C. The gatehouse, moat bridge and boundary walls form another listing, also Grade I, as does the well house. In addition, the boundary walls and well house also form part of a Scheduled Ancient Monument designation with the ruined palace (that is, Burnell’s Hall). Finally, the gardens are Grade II* registered.

Located next to the cathedral, the earliest part of the building dates to the 1220s when Bishop Jocelin (or Jocelyn) was in office. Jocelin hailed from Wells and the act of building a great episcopal residence in the city was carried out to finally define it as the heart of Somerset’s diocese, which was then centred in Bath (Rait 1910: 288-9). His main range still survives, the first floor hall (Fig. 45, p.65) with vaulted undercroft (Fig. 46, p.65) mentioned in the first section. The chapel and the ruins of the great hall built by Bishop Burnell in the late thirteenth century (Fig. 47, p.66) and the north wing built by Bishop Bekynton in the mid-fifteenth century (Fig. 48, p.66) make up the rest of the present building. In 1341, Bishop Ralph was granted a licence to crenellate and formed the present moat by diverting the natural springs in the gardens whilst carrying out the works. Various other bishops had input, particularly with remodelling in the nineteenth century, while the layout of the gardens is mainly Bishop Law’s doing in the 1820s, as mentioned previously.

Fig. 44: Wells Palace from west lawn: fifteenth-century north wing (now bishop’s residence) at left, early thirteenthcentury hall (with Victorian upper floor) in centre, and late thirteenth-century chapel and ruined hall to right.

64

Fig. 45: The first floor of Jocelin’s hall.

Fig. 46: The undercroft of Jocelin’s hall. This is now available for event hire, seen here prepared for a wedding.

Though recognised to be an impressive and historically significant building, in 1954 the Church Commissioners’ architect had concluded that the palace was badly planned and inconvenient, not to mention in a state of decay. The aforementioned Country Life article also questioned whether future bishops would wish to maintain the staff required for its upkeep, despite its charms (Hussey, 1942:512). In short, “Wells presented a sublime union of historic beauty with practical impossibility” (Chandler, 2006:140). The then bishop was also deeply unsatisfied with it, claiming its inefficiency to be a great hindrance to carrying out his duties, but local public opinion was apparently against him moving out, encouraging a reconsideration (Chandler, 2006:140). Alternatives such as leasing the main building to a theological college and building a smaller flat for the bishop in the grounds were considered, but deemed too controversial. Instead, the bishop’s living space was merely reduced to the north wing, making it more contained. Eventually, even Bishop Harold Bradfield, who had complained about the building, came to accept this solution, apparently stating that it “must surely prove an asset over time” (quoted in Chandler, 2006:141). The gardens, though not the palace, were by this time open to the public during the summertime and he even proposed that, in order to draw on the thousands of tourists that passed through Wells, the state rooms could also be opened up.

Bishop Edward Henderson began the initiative of allowing visitor access to parts of the Palace in the 1960s, but it is only in more recent years that it has become a more formalized business arrangement. An assessment of the palace was undertaken prior to the retirement of Bishop Jim Thompson in 2001 and it was decided by the Church Commissioners to retain the building as the See house. The condition was that it would need to demonstrate that it could generate sufficient income to cover any additional costs

65

Fig. 47: Burnell’s hall, as it would have once appeared.

Fig. 48: The fifteenth-century range (now the bishop’s residence) across the moat.

66

beyond the standard maintenance that the Commissioners would pay. As such, when the present bishop, Peter Price, was appointed, it was done so on the understanding that he would commit to not only the wider role of the bishop, but also to the role of Chairman of the Board of Trustees (Garrett, 2011).

Today, it continues to be the official residence and offices of the bishop as well as a visitor attraction (Fig. 49). The bishop’s offices occupy the ground floor of the north wing, while his residence occupies the upper floors. This private part of the palace contains sufficient space, including a dining room, to enable the bishop to host gatherings, which he does on a regular basis. For an entrance fee, the public can access the other parts of the palace, including the ground and first floors of Jocelin’s eastern wing, the chapel (which also continues to serve as the bishop’s private chapel) and the celebrated gardens and wells. On rare occasions, including for an annual three-day clergy retreat, the great hall and chapel are closed to the public, but the grounds remain accessible. At the beginning of 2012, the entrance fee stands at £7 (with Gift Aid), a relatively small amount in comparison with many other historic tourist attractions, allowing them to be competitive. Membership is offered, which provides unlimited access and half-price access to some other attractions in the local area. In turn, membership at those other sites allows half-price access to Wells Palace, encouraging further visitors. The public are also able to access the forecourt of the palace for no cost, enabling them to use the café and shop which are run by Palace

Fig. 49: Tourist brochure for the palace and gardens.

Fig. 50: The gallery space within Jocelin’s hall, where local artists exhibit.

67

Enterprises, a commercial arm of the Trust which feeds back all profits to the principal charitable arm. The palace also hosts temporary art exhibitions (Fig. 50, p.67) and one-off events, which help to attract local audiences. Further revenue is derived from hiring the hall for private events, including weddings and other functions. The palace also received a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund in 2007 in support of their proposals to improve visitor access, interpretation and facilities.

Both the buildings and the grounds at Wells have a lot to offer the visitor, and this is evidenced by strong growth in the venture since a more formal approach has been taken (Garrett, 2011). Wells is not easy to get to without a car as there is no train station, making the only public transport option a bus from Bath or Bristol. However, it is very much on the tourist map for its famous cathedral, and the Bishop’s Palace is well situated alongside it and directly off the market place (Fig. 51). This obviously works to its great advantage in drawing in visitors who may not otherwise be aware of the building. The fact that this is still a functioning residence of a bishop certainly adds a note of interest to the experience.

However, there is no impression given that public access to the grounds is an imposition, despite the fact that the residential and office wing faces onto the main lawn. The success of the palace as both the bishop’s residence and a tourist attraction is particularly interesting given that it was condemned as unsuitable in the 1950s. It was, in effect, local opposition which prevented it from being made redundant and forced the Church into making it work for them as a See house.

Fig. 51: The gate house from Wells’ market place. The cathedral can be glimpsed behind.

68

Diocese of Worcester

Hartlebury Castle forms part a recent controversial spate of disposals by the Church Commissioners, following the 2005 review of suitability. One of the medieval manor houses of the Bishop of Worcester, it has been the sole residence for over 160 years and has for the last 50 years has been part-leased to the county’s museum services, as an attempt to generate an income from the building. Described as “a deliciously peaceful site” (Brooks, 2007:361), there are now fears in the local and wider conservation community that it will fall into private ownership.

The castle is a Grade I listed building (Fig. 52), while the gate lodges, boundary wall, coach house (now gardener’s house) and stables (now museum offices) are Grade II. The associated grounds are Grade II registered. The current residence of the Bishop of Worcester is a Grade II listed building immediately to the north of Worcester Cathedral and probably dating to the late-seventeenth century. The list descriptions for the principal building at Hartlebury and the College Green house are reproduced in Appendix C. Located 10 miles from the cathedral city of Worcester, the construction of Hartlebury was begun by Bishop Cantelupe during his episcopacy of 1236-66, and continued under Bishop Giffard, who obtained a licence to crenellate in 1268. Following occupation by the Parliamentarians in the Civil War, it was restored to the diocese but was much in ruins, with the exception of the keep. The structure therefore dates mostly to the late-seventeenth century, although the central hall is fifteenth century and much of the later construction falls within the basic original footprint. The building was also much altered in the eighteenth century as three bishops carried out significant works, including the remodelling of the chapel in Gothick style and the Rococo redecoration of the saloon and drawing room. Bishop Hurd was the last bishop of that century, and created a library to house his collection of books, which was bequeathed to his successors and so remains intact and in situ today (Figs. 53 and 54, p.70). Its survival is apparently rare, being “the only example of a Georgian library of a scholar bishop still on its original shelves in the room built for it” (Beeson, Inglewood, 2010:14).

Fig. 52: Hartlebury Castle from the east lawn. Chapel to left, saloon and hall to centre, service wing (now museum) to right. All heavily restored and rebuilt in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

69

Hartlebury Castle was the principal residence of the Bishops of Worcester from the late-seventeenth century but at least one other residence, the medieval palace in Worcester itself, was retained until the nineteenth century. In 1846, the costs of maintenance meant that the Worcester palace was sold to the Cathedral Chapter for use as a deanery. It retained this use until 1941, when it briefly became a Ministry of Works office, before taking on its current use as the diocesan offices in 1950. The building is Grade I listed and, as already mentioned, is thirteenthcentury with extensive eighteenthcentury remodelling (Fig. 25, p.31).

Fig. 53: Hurd’s eighteenth-century library, housing his original book collection.

However, the suitability of Hartlebury Castle has been much debated since it became the sole residence. As early as 1860, consideration had been given to moving the bishop back to Worcester. A decision was announced in 1902 that it would cease to be the official residence but this was overturned, while Bishop Yeatman-Biggs converted the stable block for use as a theological training centre. However, the Castle came under particular scrutiny in the mid-twentieth century. Once again, Country Life, in its 1942 article on the threats to bishops’ palaces, thought it unlikely future bishops would want to maintain the staff and spend the funds on the upkeep of the palace, particularly given its distance from Worcester itself (Hussey, 1942:512).

Fig. 54: Eighteenth-century elevation and plan of library scheme.

70

Following the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, Hartlebury indeed became a focus of the attentions of the Church Commissioners as they sought to rationalise the bishops’ palaces. In 1956 they reckoned that any further costs to the property could not be justified and that it was “fundamentally inconvenient and beyond remodelling” (Chandler, 2006:142). Hence, a decision was made for it to cease to be the See house.

However, the diocese was keen that it should remain as Church property and convinced the Commissioners to come up with a solution to reduce the accommodation of the bishop, so that the costs of upkeep would be reduced. The scheme proposed extensive remodelling of the central hall and demolition of part of one the wings. There were objections to these plans from the forerunner to English Heritage, and the issue drew the attention of the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings. They requested permission to present their alternative, which entailed provision for the bishop’s residential accommodation in the south wing and preservation of the great hall intact. This won the support of the bishop and his wife, who suggested further work to divide the north wing into flats for a source of income through rental. It was also the cheaper option of the two proposals.

By 1964, it was finally agreed that the bishop would stay in residence. The SPAB scheme was adopted for the bishop’s accommodation but rather than rental flats in the north wing, the Worcester Museum Services took out a lease of this part and the service buildings in order to open up a county museum. The Rococo drawing room was subdivided for the bishop’s offices but the more impressive saloon (Fig. 55) and the medieval hall (Fig. 56, p.72) were left untouched. These lay outside the realm of the bishop’s house, but would be available for use by him when required for larger functions. They were passed into the management of the Hartlebury Castle State Rooms Trust, who would also make them occasionally available for public access.

Fig. 55: The eighteenth-century saloon. The Rococo work is executed in papier-mâché, rather than plaster.

71

Fig. 56: The great hall at Hartlebury Castle, with exposed ďŹ fteenth-century roof trusses.

Fig. 57: The Bishop of Worcester’s new residence (centre), located by the cathedral (left) within a secluded close of Georgian houses.

72

Apparently such a move was not sufficient to address the long-term problems of the Church Commissioners in dealing with Hartlebury Castle. Following the revision of the guidelines for suitability, the castle was reassessed in consultation with the then bishop, and the recommendation was made in 2006 that it cease being the See house. The bishop now resides in a house right on the cathedral’s doorstep in Worcester, in a quiet close of Georgian houses (Fig. 57, p.72). Although refronted in the early-nineteenth century, it is earlier than the neighbouring houses, being thought to date to the late seventeenth century.

The thirteenth-century cellars have also led to the suggestion that it is on the site of a former chaplains’ residence (Brooks, 2007:704). It has a dignified outward appearance and is generously sized, of four bays and three storeys. It is likely to serve the bishop admirably in terms of space. It is also undoubtedly convenient, sited in the heart of Worcester, immediately beside the cathedral and with the diocesan offices but a short walk away.

However, the question of Hartlebury Castle’s future still looms large. As mentioned earlier, when a decision is made to demote a building from a See house, it is passed into the Commissioners’ property portfolio, after which a decision is made about its future.

An alternative Church use can be found for it, or it can be leased or sold on. In this instance, the decision was made to sell it on the open market. When this was revealed, the Hartlebury Castle Preservation Trust was set up. Its aim is to raise the funds to purchase the building, and thereby secure it along with its historic contents, particularly the important Hurd Library. The Trust have produced a multi-faceted business plan for the site, with the intention that the various avenues of income will increase its ability to financially support its venture. This would include continued use as a museum, whilst

Green: period rooms and events space Light blue: conference and training Yellow: Worcestershire County Museum Orange: Hartlebury Castle museum Red: cafe Dark blue: services and circulation (The Hurd Library, at mezzanine level, to continue in use as library and research facility)

Fig. 58: Ground floor of Hartlebury, showing the Hartlebury Castle Preservation Trust’s proposals for new use. The bishop’s residence and offices were in the top left part of the building.

73

opening it up as a more complete asset for the local community, used both for training and education, and as a venue for public and private events (Fig. 58, p.73). Discussions between the Trust and the Church Commissioners have led to an agreement to grant the Trust a two-year period in which to raise funds before the building goes on the open market. To assist in this, the trustees were allowed some access to the castle for fundraising purposes, including tours. The Church Commissioners, however, retain their position of being unable to offer the building to the Trust at a rate below market value due to their fiduciary responsibilities (Beeson, Inglewood, 2010:15-16).

The greatest fear of the Hartlebury Preservation Trust and sympathisers in the conservation community is sale to an unsympathetic buyer who will either shut off the building to the public completely, or convert it for commercial use in a way which will compromise its significance. Even if a well-intentioned private or commercial buyer came along, they see that the only way to secure the long-term future of the building is for it to be in the hands of a Trust (Beeson, Inglewood, 2010:14). The Trust made an application for a Heritage Lottery Fund grant in 2011 but this was turned down. However, they intend to resubmit and have now been given a six-month extension by the Church Commissioners, until September 2012, before the castle goes on the open market. However, once that happens, there is a considerable risk that the building will attract the attentions of a private buyer. Hartlebury has much more of a domestic feel than other bishops’ palaces, is more cohesive as an architectural piece and, therefore, likely to appear less cumbersome to a potential buyer. It is also secluded without being completely inaccessible. As such, it is an incredibly appealing building, not just from an historical viewpoint.

Despite efforts to make Hartlebury suitable for a modern bishop and also cost-effective, the building has been a persistent problem. The recommendation to decommission the building was made by the bishop, who had been living in the property for the duration of his office, so was well aware of its foibles and advantages. There are certainly inherent difficulties in the building. For instance, its location, though it has definite appeal, is difficult to get to by public transport as trains stop at the local station only in the early mornings and evenings. As such, it is both inconvenient for the bishop and his guests, and it cannot draw in passing tourists and members of the public to support money-generating ventures. The bishop’s new house is certainly more conveniently placed. But however suitable it may be, the story of the Worcester See house is not complete while Hartlebury is still at risk. The concern of the conservation community is that the decision to sell has been based on financial, rather than functional concerns, and that decisions have been made without giving due regard to the historic significance of the building.

Dioceses of Carlisle and Durham

In common with Hartlebury, the See houses of both Carlisle and Durham, Rose Castle and Auckland Castle respectively, have also been judged to be unsuitable accommodation for bishops in the past few years. They are two of the Church’s most historic and commanding bishops’ houses, originally dating back to the medieval period. Both Grade I listed, they are architecturally rich, with eventful histories. As mentioned in the first section, Rose’s location near the Scottish border has had a marked impact on its history, whilst Auckland Castle accommodated some of the most powerful men in medieval England, the prince bishops of Durham.

74

Undeniably unwieldy, and both sitting outside the cathedral city (Carlisle by eight miles, Durham by twelve), these two buildings have come under review numerous times and have come close to being sold off at other points in the second half of the twentieth century.

Seemingly the only thing to have stopped this was the unwillingness of bishops attuned to their historic significance and the pride taken in them by the communities in which they sit and by the wider dioceses. In the late 1960s, the Bishop of Durham admitted that Auckland Castle was not the most convenient or economically efficient building but for him to leave would “create dismay, and be a very severe shock to the whole diocese” (Chandler, 2006:190). At the same time, the Bishop of Carlisle was warding off the Church Commissioners by plainly informing them that he and the next generation felt that Rose Castle should remain the See house (Chandler, 2006:193). However, such gentle dismissals have not had the same effect in recent years, and both Auckland and Rose have now been ruled to be untenable, with the definite sense that economics has come high on the agenda.

A review of Rose Castle (Fig. 59) was undertaken in 2008, under which it was deemed to be suitable, but this was quickly followed by another in 2009 which reversed the decision.

Although location and environmental sustainability were considerations, the financial incentive seems to be have been key, as was made apparent in the official press release.

This stated that the change in financial climate led to the second review and also quoted the Secretary to the Church Commissioners as saying “a lot of money would need to be spent to make it suitable for a home and base for the bishop’s ministry. There are many calls on the Commissioners’ financial support for the Church’s mission and ministry and so tough choices have to be faced.” (Church of England, 2009).

Fig. 59: Aerial photo of Rose Castle today.

75

Red: Yellow: Purple: Blue:

Bishop’s accommodation State rooms Bishop’s offices Leasable flats

Fig. 60: First floor plan showing the Friends of Rose Castle’s proposals for the retention of the building as the see house. The bishop’s reduced residence is shown in red.

Following this news, an options report was prepared by the Rose Castle Steering Committee, established by the bishop. This suggested ways in which other uses might be incorporated alongside the bishop’s accommodation, including function space, rentable flats and sightseeing (Fig. 60). The Committee applied the Church Commissioners’ own See house guidelines for room allowances in preparing their suggestion for the reducedsize bishop’s apartments. As at Wells and Hartlebury, the state rooms would be in a public area, but could be used by the bishop or other members of the diocese when required.

Such an approach, argued the Committee, would enable the bishop’s accommodation to be made more suitable while public access would enable the building to be self-sustaining and expose people to the historic significance of the building for the first time (Rose Castle Steering Committee, undated:1). A Trust could be set up to manage the operation, with part leased back to the bishop, thereby removing the onus from the Church Commissioners.

However, their suggestions were not taken on board, despite the fact that a ‘mixed economy’ approach to this particular property had not been attempted and may have proved successful. Again, the decision was made to sell, rather than lease, though the local interest group, Friends of Rose Castle, have again been given two years to raise funds before marketing begins.

The events at Auckland Castle (Fig. 61, p.77) have been slightly more unusual but again indicate the Church Commissioners’ tendency to fail to perceive the full significance of their historic assets. As part of a review of Auckland Castle, the Church Commissioners announced their intention to sell off a collection of paintings by the artist Zurbaran, which had hung in the castle’s dining room since the mid-eighteenth century (Fig.62, p.77). This caused an uproar in the local community, conservation circles and in the national media.

76

The outcome was a purchase of the paintings by an investment manager, Jonathan Ruffer, on the condition they remained in situ. Although at the time the decision on the future of Auckland as the See house had not been announced, the possibility of it being deemed unďŹ t for purpose loomed large. Leading on from the sale of the paintings, Ruffer purchased the whole property and established the Auckland Castle Trust, with a view to opening it as a tourist attraction. Its post-episcopal life is thus more assured at this point than that of Rose or Hartlebury.

Fig. 61 Auckland Castle, shown in 1728.

Fig. 62: The dining room, hung with the Zurbaran paintings, the proposed sale of which caused an uproar and attracted national media attention.

77

4.4

Assessment of the Church Commissioners’ Guidance and Practice

The Church Commissioners clearly have a complex task in the management of the bishops’ houses, one which is continually renewed as each house comes up cyclically for review.

It is their responsibility to find a way to balance the domestic and ministry needs of the bishops with the finite finances of the Church and their stewardship of what they recognise to be some of the nation’s most important buildings.

As both the legislation which brought them into being and their review guidance make clear, the Church Commissioners’ primary reason for being is to sustain the ministry of the Church by ensuring that it is administered and resourced properly. In regards to the See houses, the principal concern is that these are able to function effectively as a base for the bishop’s ministry and that the efforts and resources expended on them do not create unfair distraction from the Church Commissioners’ other commitments. They have made concerted efforts to engage with the bishops throughout their existence in order to understand their needs and enable a fair and robust management system. Many of their guidelines, particularly the instigation of management plans for each property, are commendable and make good sense.

With hospitality as a key role in a bishop’s ministry, the Commissioners recognise that a See house has to provide sufficient space for a bishop to host functions and meet privately with people. However, they have perhaps failed to take on board a theme which comes out subtly through their consultations with bishops and in the case studies – that is, that bishops are often flexible about how they use their houses, and adapt to them in matters of hospitality and ministry. They make the houses work for them and their needs. Some bishops may feel overwhelmed by the historic houses and architecturally they may sometimes be inconvenient due to their haphazard plans and great size. However, many bishops recognise that they have great merit and that they can be adaptable to modern ministry. In the 1960s, the Bishop of Durham, Ian Ramsey, stated that Auckland Castle is “a symbol of tradition which has been constantly worked out against contemporary needs” (Chandler, 2006:191). He is just one example of a bishop who has realised that the proud history of these buildings and their continual use as a base for spiritual leadership is a powerful symbol of the steadfastness of the Church. This outweighs their foibles, which can be overcome with a little bit of creativity now, as they have in the past.

An effort is made in the Church Commissioners’ guidance to understand and take account of the value and complexity of the historic properties. They suggest that these buildings need to be viewed on their own merits and assessed in a different manner from other See houses. Therefore, they have recommended and adopted flexible principles, particularly to take account of the historic houses. In instances such as Wells, they have acknowledged the architectural and historic significance of the building and have come up with a creative solution to keep it open. At Hartlebury and Rose they have demonstrated some concern for the future of the buildings by granting the local groups a set period to raise funds.

On some occasions, however, the impression is that the Church Commissioners are paying lip service to their historic houses, but not demonstrating a strong commitment to them, either in their policy wording or in their actions. They apparently recognise the

78

significance of having a bishop in continual occupation and see that the ecclesiastical connections are quickly diminished once a bishop is no longer in residence. However, their 2005 strategic review also suggested that the Commissioners would see no fundamental problem with disposing of a bishop’s residence that was judged to be suitable if “it was to the advantage of the Church to do so”, for instance, if a suitable new user came up that would secure the future of the building (Elloy, 2005:8). In practice, instances such as Rose, where a mixed use was not given the chance to be trialled, suggest that not enough effort has been always been made to retain the historic use of the buildings.

In the 2005 review, reference is made to residences being constantly relocated over time and frequently finding positive new uses. The tone adopted feels as though the Commissioners are almost making the assertion that the disposal of historic palaces is justified by past patterns. Although it is true that some have found appropriate new uses, as touched upon in the second section of this thesis, this is not always the case. Past instances of disposal have also sometimes been flawed and lessons should be learnt from these.

The Church should be striving to prevent more disposals which they will come to regret, as with the vicarages. Most telling, however, is the Church Commissioners’ rejection of the recommendations for the historic houses given in the Resourcing Bishops report. The Commissioners’ consultation process and their provision of time for trusts to raise funds pales in comparison to the suggested policy of actively seeking transfer of a significant house to a heritage body, and then only after every effort has been made to retain it.

Money is said not to be a deciding factor in judging the See houses although, understandably enough, it does play a vital role. A bishop’s house would not be suitable if it could not even be afforded, or if it diverted too much money away from the core functions of the Church and maintenance of its clergy. However, there is the distinct impression that the recent financial downturn has caused an element of panic, and resulted in some abrupt decisions driven by financial concerns. Rose Castle is the classic example of this, where it is acknowledged that the return review was carried out in light of the financial situation. At Fulham Palace, though longer ago, the keenness to find new accommodation actually resulted in more costs to the Commissioners than would have been incurred if they had not been so hasty to rid themselves of their financial burden.

Although the Commissioners’ policy, and in some instances their actions, investigate the possibilities of making these properties generate an income, there could be more commitment given to this. They claim reluctancy to engage in entrepreneurial activities but, as mentioned in the second section of this thesis, a more business-like approach has proven a good source of income at cathedrals. A similar principle might therefore be successfully applied to the historic bishops’ palaces. If this proves untenable in any particular case, it would be preferable to lease them, rather than sell them. This approach has been taken at Fulham, as well as Ely and Farnham. To sell these buildings provides a one-off payment only but a lease would provide a continual flow of income. It would also leave open the option of the Church returning to the buildings in the future. A restrictive lease could be applied, which may be more difficult to fill but would insure against a tenant with little interest in preserving the significance of the buildings. Dilapidation clauses on leases would protect the buildings from neglect and ensure that, if they return to the Church, they did so in a fit state.

79

Of the case studies presented, Wells Palace has been the most successful example of balancing the requirements of a bishop’s house with the architectural and historic importance of the building. Its condemnation as unfit for purpose has been overturned and energies put into not only making it fit for purpose for the bishop’s basic needs, but also into turning it into a focus of local interest and possibilities. The emphasis in much of the promotion of the palace is that it should be seen by the people of Somerset as their palace and gardens. Not only does this give the local people a sense of ownership and pride in this special building, it also makes the institution of the Church appear more accessible and must certainly have helped to break down some of the negative perceptions and misunderstandings about bishops’ palaces. Although not traditional ministry, this form of hospitality, in opening the palace doors to the public for events and sharing of the historic and architectural wealth of the city of Wells, can be viewed as an opportunity for the Church to reach out to people in a ‘non-threatening’ way. Of course, the approach taken at Wells is not guaranteed to work in every instance, as it has definite advantages in its location, but it is testament to how, when a definite decision is made to focus on making one of these buildings self-sustaining, it can bring unprecedented benefits as well as providing for the conventional needs of the bishops.

The case of the Diocese of London has, in some respects been successful as it has led to the final result of a suitable (for the time being, at least) house for the Bishop of London and the opening of an historically significant building for the wider appreciation of the public.

The bishop’s location is more central now, which may arguably allow him to be more accessible and to welcome more people through his doors. That the house is comparatively small undoubtedly makes it more manageable as there is no need to incorporate different uses to justify its size. Architecturally, it is still a fit signifier of the bishop’s importance in the Church. The opening of Fulham Palace, meanwhile, undoubtedly serves as a positive educational and cultural facility, and has enabled this architecturally intriguing building to be revealed to the public. The walled garden too evokes a sense of quiet contemplation which enables a connection with the site’s historic use as a spiritual place. However, unlike Wells, it will increasingly become frozen as a museum set piece, rather than an active and continued centre of ministry. At Auckland Castle, a similar result is likely, although final decisions on where the Bishop of Durham and his offices are to be located have not been announced. If they remain part of the complex, or close by, the building may retain more of its active episcopal connection.

Unfortunately, in the case of Hartlebury and Rose, both of which now face an uncertain future, the Church Commissioners have, by their actions, served to alienate many people.

The concern of many in the Church, and one which is mentioned in the Commissioners’ guidance, is that the retention of these historic palaces are not only a drain on resources and make life difficult for the bishop in residence, but that the grand architecture conveys the wrong image to the public about the Church. They acknowledge that this negative image is not universal, and that many people are also in support of the bishops staying in their palaces. It would at first seem that both concerns could not be addressed, but Wells has demonstrated some of the possibilities of winning favour on both sides. It has done so by making the buildings more accessible, having the bishop open his house up generously and hospitably as a shared resource. In encouraging people to view the building as their

80

own heritage, rather than an untouchable part of the Church’s property, the relationship of the local people to the building becomes more akin to that they would have with a parish church. Hartlebury and Rose, however, have upset the people who wish the bishops to stay in residence, and created the impression that the Church is more interested in money than its spiritual heritage. The Church Commissioners have lost the opportunity to overturn negative perceptions about the Church and to make these places centres of the creative, broad ministry that Wells has demonstrated. They may have also permanently lost the opportunity to reveal the buildings’ architectural and historic significance by their failure to commit to their futures.

Overall, the Church Commissioners, despite their efforts to provide flexible guidelines for defining the suitability of See house, are perhaps looking at this too practically and in a short term manner. Undoubtedly, the assessment of suitability must take account of the bishop’s ability to carry out his role but the Commissioners seem to be taking too narrow a view of what a bishop’s ministry is and can be, and on the value of the Church retaining its historic assets. These buildings have the capacity to enrich the lives of future generations if they are handled properly. If the connection to the Church is maintained, this has the potential to enhance the image of the Church in the long term as they will be seen to be sharing their historic assets with the nation in a responsible and positive fashion. The future of a palace does not directly link to an assessment of a building’s suitability, but the Church Commissioners should have more regard for what happens to these palaces in the long term.

81

5.

CONCLUSION

The twenty-first century presents a very different social climate from that into which the medieval bishops’ palaces appeared. The Church and its bishops are nowhere near as wealthy as they once were, and their level of influence is much diminished. The role of the Church in wider society has changed significantly and today’s bishops have more of a challenge in connecting with the general population who are now less likely to see their relevance. There is a need to be more accessible and, whereas bishops in the past were expected to impress the population with their palaces, today, as then, they can sometimes seem to be a barrier to reaching out in a pastoral role. However, the main elements of a bishop’s role within the Church remain, in principle, as they have for centuries. Though his political role is lessened, he is still required to be the ‘chief pastor’ in his diocese, providing hospitality to a wide range of people, carrying out ministry, and supporting the clergy in an administrative and managerial role.

A bishop’s house is required to not only accommodate him in a domestic sense, but must also serve as an appropriate base from which he can carry out his myriad duties. There is concern within the Church that the historic See houses, which have been inherited from the medieval episcopacy, cause undue inconvenience to the modern bishops who now inhabit them without the large retinue of staff or the funds which were required to run them efficiently in the past. There is also the concern that the money and energy channelled into their maintenance distracts from the main duties of the Church Commissioners, creates an unfair balance between those dioceses with and without historic houses, and does damage to the image of the Church in wider society, particularly in the current climate of austerity.

It cannot be denied that the cost of upkeep for these buildings is great, in terms of continual maintenance and the specialist advice required if alterations are deemed necessary. The space offered by them is generally in excess of need and often requires the inhabitant bishop to show some creativity to ensure that they do not create an obstacle to his ministry.

There are also some which, due to historically being manor houses, are situated in locations difficult to access by public transport.

However, to say that they are not fit for purpose does not seem to be an accurate conclusion. The needs of a modern bishop are that he is able to offer hospitality and ministry, whilst also carrying out his basic management role. The historic palaces do not fatally impose on any of those duties in terms of functionality. In fact, they provide better opportunities for hospitality due to their size and flexibility. Many bishops have indicated that they make the house work for them in whatever form it takes. Just as the majority of bishops are accepting of the office arrangements that are in place when they take up their position, most are likely to accept the house which comes with their See, whatever that house is, unless it absolutely cannot sustain them. Judging suitability is really an almost impossible task as, despite surveys of bishops, all will have different ways of operating.

A house that allows flexibility for different bishops with different styles of ministry and different families should be key in determining the suitability of a house. Generally, a large historic house will allow this flexibility as each individual bishop can determine how to use each space to the best support of his ministry. Excess rooms might inspire additional, positive uses for the building, or can simply be shut off to reduce energy consumption and running costs.

82

The Church Commissioners recognise that the needs of bishops and the requirements of their houses are liable to change in the future as they have changed from the past.

However, it is not only the needs of the bishops which are susceptible to this, but also the structure and funding of the Church itself. As such, a See house should, in addition to being flexible from one bishop to another in a short period of time, also be adaptable to change in the long term, so that the need to source completely new houses, which is costly, disruptive and time-consuming, is minimised. The size and number of bishops’ houses have shrunk over the centuries and the facilities needed by an individual bishop may continue to shrink. However, if the resources of the Church as a whole are further diminished, surely the ownership of a large, flexible house could be an asset, as it might enable a restructuring of how the Church runs its facilities. In future, for example, diocesan office needs and bishop needs may shrink to a point that they could both be accommodated in one location, saving on expenditure. Even if this doesn’t occur and the Church grows in future, if it begins to become more relevant to society again or expands its remit, the retention of these assets may again prove beneficial as they won’t outgrow the accommodation so readily as they might a new house.

These suggestions do not, however, remove the present concerns over money. The Church Commissioners have concerns over channelling money into the retention of these properties, seeing it as distracting from their core purpose. A financially draining house is not a suitable house. It is important for a bishop not to be seen as decadent as this could stand as an obstacle to his accessibility and contradict his ministry. However, the buildings do not have to be a drain on resources, and have the potential to generate their own income, more so than a modern See house would. Enabling greater public access to these buildings might, if managed properly, not only be a good source of income but could expand the bishop’s ministry possibilities. There is a wider scope for events which could be held at the palace to draw in people who wouldn’t usually have contact with a bishop, both of a religious and non-religious nature. The mere act of opening the palace doors to the wider community would be a strong act of Christian hospitality and would be liable to vastly improve the image of the Church amongst those critical of bishops living in such large houses. Allowing people to access their architectural heritage could also be deeply enriching on another level. Bishops in the past were strong advocates of education before it became accessible to all, and this could be an informal incarnation of that sensibility.

Beyond the financial problems, the Church Commissioners express concern over creating an imbalance between dioceses if some have larger or more historic houses. This thinking, however, could be crippling. The philosophy of making distribution fair is not in itself problematic and is, indeed, one of the key reasons for the Church Commissioners’ inception. However, there will always be variation between the See houses. When the argument of fairness is used towards the justification for disposal of historic See houses, there is the massive risk of being overdiplomatic and reducing things to the lowest common denominator. The fears expressed by some about precedents set by sales could become increasingly true if this tendency continues, until no historic See houses are retained for diocesan bishops. This would be a great loss for the Church as a whole, resulting from a flawed attempt at equal distribution. The attempt at creating a fair balance could also be unending, as the needs of bishops are constantly revised and new houses are sourced.

83

The Commissioners are inclined to separate their bishop resourcing duties from the fate of these buildings, markedly demonstrated in the transfer of responsibility for redundant See houses to the Assets Committee. However, the concerns of the conservation community in respect of the future of the buildings are valid. The Church is the present owner of the buildings, but they are part of the nation’s shared inheritance and due regard should be given to this fact. Though it is a reluctant steward, the Church needs to accept that it nevertheless has responsibilities in the bishops’ palaces, which should really be regarded in the same way as its historic church buildings. There is recognition by the Church Commissioners that these buildings lose an essential part of their significance when the episcopal ties are broken. Not only is this true, but it is also a definite challenge to find sensitive new uses which respects a building’s history and will preserve its fabric and architectural character. There are some success stories but these are no guarantee for the future of every building. Therefore, in the interest of preserving the significance of these buildings, more commitment should be made to retaining them in their original use. If this proves entirely impossible, the Church Commissioners should at least commit to ensuring the long-term future of the buildings, rather than necessarily making the best financial return.

Although not obviously connected to the matter of whether the historic bishops’ palaces are fit for purpose, the question of how the Church Commissioners deal with these buildings in respect of their status as heritage assets does, in reality, have the potential to have a strong impact on the image of the Church. It must be recognised that the Commissioners’ current actions are alienating community groups, despite the consultation processes in which they have engaged. At the same time, it is unlikely that they are reversing the opinions of those who object to bishops residing in large houses as the newer properties are still required to be of substantial size. Again, the Church should recognise that its image could be improved, thereby enabling a more effective ministry, if it made better use of these buildings by allowing public access and introduced more transparency about how they function. They should be recognised not as a burden but as a valuable cultural and financial asset for the present and future.

In summary, the attempt to define suitability is an almost impossible task. It is difficult to do so for the present environment, let alone to determine how needs might change in the future. The best approach is perhaps instead to work with what the Church already owns. Rather than seeking to assess whether a bishop’s palace is fit for purpose every time a bishop reaches the age of 62, a reasonably frequent cycle of review and one which makes it difficult to plan for the long-term, perhaps the best approach would be to commit to the present stock for a set period. The review process should continue but the question presented should not be is this house fit for purpose, but rather how can we work with this house to make it fit for purpose?

84

6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published material (including online articles and documents)

Alexander, Gina (1978) ‘Victim or Spendthrift? The Bishop of London and His Income in the Sixteenth Century’ in Ives, EW et al (eds.) Wealth and Power in Tudor England, London: Athlone Press, pp.128-145.

Airs, Malcolm (1975) The Making of the English Country House 1500-1640, Chichester, A.J. Ashford Ltd. Anon (1981) ‘Bishop’s Palace: Council looks for tenants for Fulham landmark’ in London Architect, May 1981, p.5.

Archbishop’s Council Financial Committee (November 2011) Financial Overview 20002009, [online], available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/852192/finan cial%20overview%202000-09%20for%20publication.pdf> [Accessed: 28 January 2012].

Archbishops’ Review Group (2001) Resourcing Bishops, London: Church House Publishing.

Archbishops’ Review Group (2002) Resourcing Archbishops, London: Church House Publishing.

Aslet, Clive (14 September 2011) ‘Don’t let the Church sell off Rose Castle’ in The Telegraph, [online], 14 September 11, available at <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ property/periodproperty/8762709/Dont-let-the-Church-sell-off-Rose-Castle.html>, [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

Bargery, Robert (2010) ‘Is it time Church of England visited Gamblers’ Anonymous’ on The Georgian Group blog [online], 15 November 2012, available at <http:// savinggeorgianbuildings.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/is-it-time-church-of-englandvisited.html> [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

Beeson, Trevor (2002) The Bishops, London: SCM. Beeson, Sue; Inglewood, Lord (2010) ‘What Becomes of Hartlebury and Rose’ in The Georgian, Issue 1, 2010, pp.12-18.

Binney, Marcus (1975) ‘The Bishop’s Palace, Wells, Somerset – I’ in Country Life, 11 December 1975, pp.1666-1669.

Binney, Marcus (1975) ‘The Bishop’s Palace, Wells – II’ in Country Life, 18 December 1975, pp.1738-1741.

Bradley, Simon (1997) The Buildings of England: London 1: The City of London, London: Penguin.

Brooks, Alan (2007) The Buildings of England: Worcestershire, London: Yale University Press.

Butler, Caroline Mary (2010) The Archbishop’s Palace at Southwell: the challenges presented by non-ecclesiastical historic buildings owned by the Church of England, Dissertation, MSc Professional Archaeology: University of Oxford Department of Continuing Education.

Chadwick, Owen (1986) Church and Historical Endowment in the Victorian Age: a lecture to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, London: Lambeth Palace.

85

Chandler, Andrew (2006) The Church in the Twentieth Century: the Church Commissioners and the politics of reform, 1948-1998, Woodbridge: Boydell.

Cherry, Bridget (1991) The Buildings of England: London 3: North West, London: Penguin.

The Church of England (1933) Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on the Reconstruction of the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne’s Bounty, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The Church of England (2009), Rose Castle, Carlisle, Press release [online], 25 September 2009, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2009/09/pr9109.aspx> [Accessed: 7 April 2012].

The Church of England (2011) Rose Castle, Carlisle, Press release [online], 29 September 2011, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2011/09/ rose-castle,-carlisle.aspx> [Accessed: 7 April 2012].

The Church Commissioners for England (2010) Church Commissioners Annual Report 2009, [online], available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/966637/ 2009report.pdf> [Accessed: 7 April 2012].

The Church Commissioners for England (2011) Church Commissioners Annual Report 2010, [online] available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1244828/final %20annual%20report%20at%2019%20april%202011.pdf> [Accessed: 28 January 2012] Communities and Local Government (2010) 2008-09 Citizenship Survey: Race, Religion and Equalities Topic Report, [online], available at <http://www.communities.gov. uk/documents/statistics/pdf/171385.pdf> [Accessed: 7 April 2012].

Dobson, Richard Barry (1996) Church and Society in the Medieval North of England, London: Hambledon Press.

Edge, Peter W. (2006) Religion and Law: an introduction. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Emery, Anthony (1996) Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales: 1300-1500 Vol.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Emery, Anthony (2000) Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales: 1300-1500 Vol.2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

England, Clive (2008) ‘The Restoration of Bishop Sherlock’s Room, Fulham Palace, London’ in ASCHB Transactions, Vol.31, pp.26-35.

Fincham, Kenneth (1990) Prelate as Pastor: the Episcopacy of James I, Leamington Spa: Clarendon.

Firth, C.H, Rait, R.S (eds) (1911) Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, London: Stationery Office.

Foyle, Andrew (2011) The Buildings of England: Somerset: North and Bristol, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gentles, Ian (1980) ‘The Sale of Bishops’ Lands in the English Reformation, 1646-1660’ in The English Historical Review, Vol.95, No.376, July 1980, pp.573-596.

Girouard, Mark (1978) Life in the English Country House, London: Yale Univesity Press.

Hansford, F.E. (1961) ‘Our Manor House at FFulham’: a brief history of Fulham Palace, London: Fulham History Society Publications no.3.

Heal, Felicity (1980) Of Prelates and Princes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hembry, Phyllis (1978) ‘Episcopal Palaces, 1535 to 1660’ in Ives, EW et al (eds.) Wealth and Power in Tudor England, London: Athlone Press, pp.146-166.

Holland, Harry (1973) Farnham Castle, Farnham: Centre for International Briefing.

86

House of Lords (2011) Hansard HL Deb, cols. 1472-1491, 7 March 2011.

House of Commons (2012) Hansard HC Deb, col. 475, 30 January 2012.

Hussey, Christopher (1942) ‘The Future of Bishops’ Palaces’ in Country Life, March 13 1942, pp.510-513.

Ives, EW et al (eds.) (1978) Wealth and Power in Tudor England, London: Athlone Press.

Keevill, Graham D. (2000) Medieval Palaces: An Archaeology, Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. Lees-Milne (1971) ‘Hartlebury Castle Revisited-I’ in Country Life, 16 September 1971, pp.672-675.

Lees-Milne (1971) ‘Hartlebury Castle Revisited-II’ in Country Life, 23 September 1971, pp.740-743.

Longville, Tim (2010) ‘See of Tranquility: the garden of the Bishop’s Palace, Wells, Somerset’ in Country Life, 28 April 2010, pp.100-105.

Merrick, Rob (2010) ‘Church planned to flog history Zurbaran painting’ in The Northern Echo, [online], 5 November 2010, available at <http://www.thenorthernecho. co.uk/news/local/bishopauckland/8619555.Church_planned_to_flog_historic_ Zurbaran_paintings/> [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

Merrick, Rob (2010) ‘Anger as Auckland Castle Sales Plans are Uncovered’ in The Northern Echo, [online], 10 November 2010, available at <http://www. thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8627532.Anger_as_castle_sale_plans_are_ uncovered/> [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

Molyneux, Nicholas, A.D. (2012) ‘Anniversary Address 2011, Hartlebury Castle, Worcester: An Introduction to its Architectural History’ in Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, Vol.56, pp.9-32.

Moss, Richard (2010) ‘Anger at plans to sell Bishop of Durham’s castle and treasures’ on BBC News, [online], 14 November 2010, available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ blogs/richardmoss/2010/11/anger_at_plans_to_sell_aucklan.html> [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

Mynors, Charles (1999) Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments, London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Parker, John Henry (1866) The Architectural Antiquities of the City of Wells, Oxford: J. Parker & Co. Payne, Naomi (2003) The Medieval Residences of the Bishops of Bath and Wells, and Salisbury, PhD Thesis, University of Bristol: Department of Archaeology.

Petre, Jonathan (2002) ‘Bishops Less Grand But More Remote’ in The Daily Telegraph, [online], 14 October, available at <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ uknews/1410087/Bishops-less-grand-but-more-remote.html> [Accessed: 17 March 2012].

Rait, R.S. (ed.) (1910) English Episcopal Palaces (Province of Canterbury), London: Constable & Company Ltd. Rait, R.S. (ed.) (1911) English Episcopal Palaces (Province of York), London: Constable & Company Ltd. Raitt Brown, James (c.1944) Number One Millbank: the story of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Russell, Helen (2010) ‘Council’s legal move to protect the Zurbarans’ in The Northern Echo, [online], available at <http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/ bishopauckland/8635857.Council___s_legal_move_to_protect_the_Zurbarans/> [Accessed: 9 February 2012].

87

Robinson, John Martin (2006) ‘Our Palaces’ in Country Life, 19 October 2006, p.106.

Smith, Lloyd A (1951) Fulham Palace: Home of the Bishops of London, Thesis, Architectural Association.

Sue Ryder Care (2009) The Future of Sue Ryder - The Old Palace, Ely, Press release, [online], 15 July 2009, available at <http://www.sueryder.org/news.php/325/the_ future_of_sue_ryder_the_old_palace_ely> [Accessed: 3 March 2012].

Swanson, Robert Norman (1989) Church and Society in Late Medieval England, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Tatton-Brown, Tim (2000) Lambeth Palace: a history of the Archbishops of Canterbury and their houses, London: Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge.

Thompson, Michael (1998) Medieval Bishops’ Houses in England and Wales, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Venables, Edmund (1895) Episcopal Palaces of England, London: Isbister & Co. Wareham, John (2000) Three Palaces of the Bishops of Winchester, London: English Heritage.

Unpublished sources

Alan Baxter & Associates (2007) Faith in the Future – Our Masterplan [Salisbury Cathedral and Close].

Alan Baxter & Associates (2011) Auckland Castle Conservation Statement.

East Cambridgeshire District Council (2011) The Old Palace, Palace Green, Ely: Planning Application 11/00512/FUL, [online], available at <http://pa.eastcambs.gov.uk/ online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal =LMTQZWGG55000> [Accessed: 3 March 2012] Elloy, Jerry (2005) The Strategic Review of See Houses: Recommended Principles and Guidelines of Suitability.

Garrett, Helen (2011) Meeting at Wells Bishop’s Palace, 21 October 2011.

Garrett, Helen (2011/2012) Personal email correspondence re: Wells Bishop’s Palace, various dates: 14/10/11 - 23/04/12.

GSS Architects (2011) Refurbishment - Old Bishop’s Palace, The King’s School, Ely: Design and Access Statement.

Hammersmith & Fulham (2003) Fulham Palace and Grounds Masterplan.

Hammersmith & Fulham (2003) Fulham Palace Conservation Plan.

Hartlebury Castle Preservation Trust (2011) Building a New Future for Hartlebury Castle Estate, Public consultation boards.

Hudson, Greg (2011/2012) Personal email correspondence re: The Church Commissioners, various dates: 12/09/11 - 28/02/12.

Mendip District Council (2009) The Bishop’s Palace, Market Place, Wells: Planning Application 2009/0817.

Nash Partnership (2011) Hartlebury Castle, Initial proposals, Drawings, 19 June 2011.

Ptolemy Dean Architects (2010) Salisbury Cathedral School: Feasibility Study.

Rose Castle Steering Committee (undated) Options for the Future of Rose Castle.

SPAB (1902-62) Hartlebury Castle, Case file.

Wychavon District Counci (2008) Hartlebury Castle Conservation Statement.

88

Government Legislation

Church Commissioners Measure (1947) Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act (1836) Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act (1840) Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure (1943) National Institutions Measure (1998) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990)

Websites

The following websites were accessed on multiple occasions between May 2011 and April 2012: Anglican Communion: Provincial Directory, available at <http://www.anglicancommunion. org/tour/province.cfm?ID=E&view=alpha> The Bishopâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Palace, Wells, available at <http://www.bishopspalacewells.co.uk/> The Church of England, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/> English Heritage: The Heritage List for England, available at <http://list.english-heritage. org.uk/default.aspx> English Heritage: Images of England, available at <http://www.imagesofengland.org. uk/default.aspx> Farnham Castle, available at <http://www.farnhamcastle.com/history> Fulham Palace, available at <http://www.fulhampalace.org/> Fulham Palace, available at <http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/externalsite/Fulhampalace/> Friends of Rose Castle, available at <http://friendsofrosecastle.org/> Gatehouse, available at <http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/home.html> Hartlebury Castle Preservation Trust, available at <http://hartleburycastletrust.org/> The London Gazette, available at <http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/> The following websites were accessed on single occasions, as detailed: Otford and District Historical Society â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Otford in Pictures, available at <http://www. otford.info/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=50> [Accessed 22 April 2012] Visit Cumbria, available at <http://www.visitcumbria.com/car/rose-castle.htm> [Accessed 22 April 2012]

89

7.

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Gazetteer of Current See Houses The tables on the following four pages present a list of the present buildings in use as the See house for each diocese. It includes their address, their distance from the cathedral (used as a signifier of the ‘heart’ of the diocese) and their listing grade and date of listing, where relevant. Some brief details are given of the listed buildings, including their date of construction, subsequent alterations, and their original purpose (where known). Notes on former See houses are provided for some dioceses.

The information regarding present see houses has been derived from the Provincial Directory on the Anglican Communion website, with some clarifications made through diocesan websites and diocesan administration staff.

The information regarding listed buildings has been derived from the English Heritage website, The National Heritage List for England.

Key: ** Dioceses covered by case studies in this thesis * Buildings mentioned at least once in this thesis ^ Full address unable to be verified

90

91

���������������

�

���������������

����������

�

����

�������

����������

����������

�������

��������

���������

����������

���

����������������������������� �������

�������

�������

��������

�������

�������

�������

�������

�������

���������������������� ������� ��������������������������������� ��������

������� ����������������� ���������������

�������� ����� ��������� ������������������������������� ������� ������������������������������

�����������������

������������������� ��������������������������� ������������� ���������������������������� ������� ������������������� ��������������������������� �������������� ����������������������� ������������������ ������������������� ��������������������������� ��������� ������������������������� ����������� ������������������������������� ����������������� ��������������� �������������������������� ����������������������� ������������������� ������������������������� ������������� ��������������������������������� ������� ����������� ������������������������������ ����������������

���������������� ���������������

���������������

����������� �������

��������� ������

��������

��������� ������ ��������

��������

��������

�������������������������������� ��������

��������������������������� ���������������������������������� ���������������������������

������� ������������������������� �������������������������� ����� ������������� �������� ��������������������������� ������ ������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ���������� �������� ������������������������������������� ������ ��������������������������� ������������������������������������� �������������������� �������� �������������������������������� ������ ������������������������������ ���������������������������������� �������������������������������� ���������� �������� �������������������������������������� ������ �������������������������������� ������������������������������������� �������������������� ��������� ����������������������������������� ������ ��������

92

����

���������������

���������������

���������������

�����������

������������������� ���������������������������� �������������� ��������������������������

���������������

������������������� ������������������������������� ���������������� ������������������������ ��������������� ��������������������������� ��������������������������

����������� ������ ��������

���

������

����������

���������

��������

���������

���������

�����

������������������� ������������� ������������������� �������������

��������

���

���

�������

������

�������� ����� ��������� �������

����������������������������� �����������������

��������������������������� �������������������

���������������������������

�������

�������

�������

�������

�������

�������

�������������������������������� ������� ��������

����������������������������� ����������������������� ��������������������������� ������������������������������� ��� ����������������������������� ������������������������ ����������������������

����������������������������� �����������������

���������������

����������

�����������������

���������������

����������� �������

��������� ������

��������

���������� ������

��������� ������

��������

�������� ������

�������� ������

���

��������

��������

������������������������������� ���������������

���������������������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ����������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������ �������� ���� ����������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ���������� ����������������������������� ���������������������������������� ������������������� ����������������������������� �������������������������� ������������������������������ ���������������������������� ���������������������������� ������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ��������������������

������� ������������������������� �������������������������� ����� ������������� �������� ����������������������������������� ������ ��������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ����������������������� ��������

93

���������

����������

�������

�������

������������������������������ ������� ������������������������ ����������������������� �������� ����������������������� ������������������������������� ������� ����������������������������� ���

����������������������������� ����������������������������� ������������������� ������������������������������ �������� ������������������

���������������

������������������� �������������� ��������������� ������������������� ����������� ��������� ���������������

����������

������ ������������

�������

���������

����������

��������

������������������� ������������������������������ ������� ����������� ������������������ ��������������� ������������������������������� ������� ���������������� ������������������� ����������������������������� ������� ����������� ��������������������������� ������������������� ����������������������������� ������� ���������� �������������������������������� ������������� ��������������� ������������������������� ������� ���������������� ����������� �������������� ������� ����������� ������������������������������ ������� ����������������������������

���������

�������������������������

���������������

�������� ����� ��������� �������

�������

�����������������

���������������

����������� �������

��������� ������ ��������

���������� ������

��������� ������ ��������

�������� �������� ������

��������

��������

�������� ������ ��������

��������

������������������������������� ���������������������������

������������������������������� ����������������������

���������������������������������� ������������������������������� �������������������������� �����������������

��������������������������

����������������������������������� ��������������������������� ��������������� ����������������������������

������������������������������������ ������������������������������ ���������������������������������� �������������������������������� ������������������������

����������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ������ �����

����

������� ������������������������� ����� ������������� ��������

94

������������������� ������������������������������� ������� ������������� �������������������������������

���������

���������������

�����������

�����������

���������

���������������������������� �������

������������������������� ����������������� ��������������������������� ������������������������ ����������������������������� ������������������� �������

�������

�������

�������

��������� ������

�������� ������

��������

��������

������������������� ���������� ������������������� ��������� ���������������

�����

���������� ������

�������� ������

��������

�������

��������

��������������������������

���������������������������������� �������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������� �����������������������������

��������������������������� ������������������������������������ ����������������������������������� ������������������������������ ���������� ����������

������� ������������������������� ����� ������������� ��������

��������������� �������������������� ��������������������������� �������� ��������� ������������������� �������������������������������

������������ ����������

���������

��������������������������� ��������������������������� ���������������� ������������������� ������������������������������� ������������� ��������������������������� ������������������� ��������������������������� ����������� ���������������

���������

���������������

�������� ����� ��������� �������

�����������

�����������������

���������������

����������� �������

Appendix B - Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943

95

96

97

98

99

Appendix C - Select List Descriptions

Case Study 1: Diocese of London WEST COURT AND EAST COURT, FULHAM PALACE SW6 FULHAM, HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM, GREATER LONDON Date listed: 07 May 1954 Date of last amendment: 11 November 1988 Grade I Bishop’s Palace (until 1973). Great Hall and service rooms built c.1480 for Bishop Kemp; porch and west courtyard built c.1500; more service rooms built to south of Great Hall for Bishop Fitzjames, 1506-22; block including Dining Room, to north of Great Hall, built c.1750 for Bishop Sherlock; east court, on site of medieval principal chambers, rebuilt in Gothick style by Stiff Leadbetter for Bishop Terrick, 1764-6, and further remodelled and refronted 1814-18 by S P Cockerell for Bishop Howley, who made new chapel out of Great Hall; south range of west courtyard rebuilt 1853 for Bishop Blomfield. Early C16 red brick with purple brick diaper patterns; C18 red brick; early C19 yellow brick to east court; gabled old tile roofs; brick stacks. Plan consists of east courtyard and west courtyard, separated by Great Hall with Bishop Sherlock’s Dining Room range to north and Bishop Fitzjames’ service range to south. West courtyard, including Great Hall range: Of 2 storeys. West front, of 6-window range, has central early C16 moulded Tudor-arched gateway; early C16 ribbed double doors have lap-jointed leaves to rear, possibly of C12 origins; flat brick arches over late C19 and C20 casements, C18 two-light leaded casement to right and large c1850 wooden cross window with leaded lights to right of archway.

North front has early C19 outshot and, to north of Great Hall, a 2-storey, 3-bay block built c.1750 for Bishop Sherlock, with projecting central bay: Semi-circular arch over mid C18 sash with thick glazing bars to centre; flat brick arches over 2 similar ground-floor sashes and 3 early C19 first-floor sashes; cyma-moulded cornice beneath parapet; early C19 twostorey, 2-bay block, in similar style and with early C19 sashes,to east. South front has C18 two-light leaded casements to first floor; 3 early C17 brick gables added to projecting early C16 service range, which has brick pilasters and string courses and arms of Bishop FitzJames carved in stone over segmental-arched doorway. Inner walls facing courtyard: Early C16 three-storey gatehouse, to Great Hall, has offset corner buttresses, mid C19 Perpendicular-style doorway, early C16 six-light oriel window with hollow- chamfered arched lights and Perpendicular colonettes; similar 5-light window above with carved spandrels; moulded brick corbels to trefoiled frieze beneath parapet. Three late C18 wooden cross windows with leaded lights to hall on left; 3 similar windows and C20 hipped dormers to range on right. South-facing wall has late C19/C20 casements set in heavy pegged frames, C19 six-panelled doors and C18 wooden cross windows. North-facing wall, rebuilt 1853 with offset buttresses, has 4 ribbed doors set in Tudor-style surrounds, 2-light casements and 3 leaded casements (probably C18) set in chamfered brick architraves. East-facing wall has late C19 door, one C18 two-light leaded casement to top left, late C19 two-light casement and C17-style cross wind6w next to early C16 archway, which inside has exposed

100

timber-framed cross walls and two mid C18 panelled doors. East Courtyard, of 1764-6 and refronted 1814-18: east elevation, of 7-window range, has stucco storey band to 5 central bays of 1814-18, with lower fenestration to outer bays; C20 French windows in outer bays, set in moulded architraves with bracketed pediments; central bays have full-height 15-pane sashes set in moulded plaster architraves with bracketed cornices; 12-pane firstfloor sashes set in moulded plaster architraves; moulded cornice beneath parapet. North elevation, of 3 storeys, with projecting outer bays, has flat brick arches over C20 door and two 9-pane sashes on ground floor; first-floor range of sashes and leaded casements set in late C18 Gothick stucco architraves; second-floor range of flat brick arches over 12-pane sashes; moulded cornice beneath parapet. Two-storey south elevation, of 8-window range, has flat brick arches over 12-pane sashes, similar cornice, C17 external stack and 3-storey brick extension of 1866 leading to Chapel (q.v.) by Butterfield. Interior: Hall range has late C17 bolection-moulded panelling, turned balusters, and 2 open pedimented doorways set on carved brackets to screens passage; Great Hall to left has coffered ceiling and c.1853 chimneypiece with segmental pediment and richly-carved festoons to overmantle; early C19 semi-circular arched blind arcading to vestibule at rear of screens passage, with access to cross-vaulted passage of same date to rear of Great Hall. C15 roof of Great Hall: collar trusses with curved windbraces to butt purlins; truss adjoining stack has queen posts clasping scissored braces and raking struts; central truss (originally a partition) has elbowed canting struts. Dining Room of c.1750, to north of Great Hall, has modillioned cornice and fine rococo plaster ceiling; room above has mid C18 panelled niche, early C19 shuttering and traces of mid/late C18 hand-blocked wallpaper. Service range to south not inspected but noted as having reset Tudor-arched wooden archway and Bishop Laud’s carved stone arms (1628-33). North range of west courtyard has timber-framed partition to west, mid C18 panelled doors set in moulded wood architraves and mid C18 panelled shutters; quartered C16 beams to room on east; mid C18 panelled dado to centre and early C19 fireplace with reeded architrave to west; first floor has late C17 straight-flight staircase with turned balusters, mid C18 stone fireplace, mid C18 plaster cornices, early C19 open-well staircase and complete sets of early C16 oak joists and floor framing. West range of west courtyard: Armoury, to north of entry, has fireplace overmantel with heraldic cartouche of Bishop Robinson (1714-23) set in carved wood imbricated frame, and segmental-arched recesses, rere-arches and ceiling cornice of c.1850 for Bishop Blomfield; C17 stop-chamfered newel post to dog-leg staircase with winders; first floor has mid C18 panelled doors, cross beams to transverse partitions; noted as having C16 roof trusses. Interior of East. Courtyard: North range: early C19 shutters; ground-floor room to west has fine early C19 neo-classical marble fireplace, enriched plaster frieze and bracketed cornices to doorways; groundfloor room to east (Porteus Library) has early C19 marble fireplace, segmental-arched vault with panelled plasterwork and bookcases with fluted half-columns; first-floor rooms have mid C18 panelled doors and shutters and plain early C19 fireplace; 3 early C19 secondfloor rooms have coffered ceilings and panelled doors; early C19 open-well staircase with ramped mahogany handrail. South range: Gallery has panels of heraldic glass, including that of Bishop Porteus; mid C18 panelled doors and dados, early C19 door architraves; ground-floor room to north has early C19 bolection-moulded panelling, fine doorcases each with carved acanthus-leaf brackets to cornices, and early C19 fireplace. Second-floor room to south has mid C18 dado, dentilled cornice and pulvinated frieze to door architrave, and fine c.1764 fireplace by Leadbetter carved with urns, Wreaths etc. in light rococo style; small room to centre has original fittings to mid C18 doors and dentilled cornice and

101

pulvinated frieze over door architrave to large reception room on north, which has another fine Leadbetter fireplace, and panelled dado. Also on second floor are rooms with early C19 plaster cornices, and mid C18 panelled dado leading to room with mid C18 cornice with fluted frieze; staircase with mid C18 twisted balusters to west. C16 timbers reset in C18 roof. C13/14 stonework in cellar, marking change of site of the Bishop’s Palace from further west to its present position.

West Court GV I Bishop’s Palace Early 16th Century with later alterations and restorations.

Built by Richard Fitzjames, Bishop of London, 1506-22. Red brick with black diaper; tiled roof. Generally 2 storeys, ranged around courtyard, reached through central arched entrance gateway on north-west side. 3-storey porch facing courtyard on south-east side with original oriel window and 18th century bell-turret. Hall range to left. Most of windows late 17th century timber mullions and transoms with leaded lights, except to refaced south west side of courtyard. South west front with 3 gables and original traceried barge boards.

Hall with panelling of c1700, fireplace by Butterfield, and heraldic glass of 16th and 17th century restored 1847 by Wailes. RCHM - WEST LONDON FULHAM PALACE SW6 TQ 2476 10/34 7.5.54 East Court GV II Extension to Bishop’s Palace. South front of 1765, altered 1814 by Cockerell. Yellow brick. Two to three storeys. Eastern and southern fronts two storeyed, with square headed mostly sashed windows, architraved to east front. North front with pointed windows to first floor (Porteus Library behind) cornice and parapet.

RCHM - WEST LONDON COUNTRY LIFE Feb 9 1929 CHAPEL, FULHAM PALACE, BISHOPS AVENUE FULHAM, HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM, GREATER LONDON Date listed: 07 May 1954 Date of last amendment: 07 May 1954 Grade II In the entry for: FULHAM PALACE SW6 TQ 2476 Chapel (formerly listed under Bishops Avenue) 10/33 The description shall be amended to read; Chapel. 1866, by William Butterfield. English bond red brick with diaper work of blue headers; gabled old tile roof.

Aisleless plan. Diagonal corner buttresses and offset buttresses. 3-light Decorated-style east window and 2-light Decorated- style windows to north and south; west end has round quatrefoil Window above 4-light trefoil-headed window. Interior: encaustic tile floor; 1950s plaster ceiling with Perpendicular-style cornice. Original Adoration of Magi reredos reset at west end; original mosaics by Salviati covered over by mural paintings of 1950s

by Graham Rust. Gothic-style benches; west window by Clayton and Bell. ----------------------------------- TQ 2476 FULHAM PALACE SW6 10/33 12.5.70 Chapel (Formerly listed under Bishops Avenue) GV II 1866, William Butterfield. Red brick, with black diaper and stone dressing, buttresses and traceried windows. Aisleless. Interior with arcaded panelling and screen.

102

ST PAUL’S DEANERY, DEANS COURT EC4 (west side) CITY OF LONDON, CITY OF LONDON, GREATER LONDON Date listed: 04 January 1950 Date of last amendment: 04 January 1950 Grade I 1670. 2 main storeys above basement. 5 windows. Red brick. Hipped, tiled roof with carved eaves cornice and dormers. Double stairs to entrance supported by arch. Carved doorcase with hood. Rear elevation plainer. C18 west wing and later addition to southwest. Good interior; largely original.

Case Study 2: Diocese of Bath and Wells THE BISHOP’S PALACE AND BISHOP’S HOUSE, BISHOP’S PALACE WELLS, MENDIP, SOMERSET Date listed: 12 November 1953 Date of last amendment: 12 November 1953 Grade I Bishop’s Palace and House. Begun in c1210 by Bishop Jocelyn but principally from c1230, restored, divided and upper storey added by Benjamin Ferrey 1846-54; north wing (now Bishop’s residence) added in C15 by Bishop Bekynton, modified C18, and c1810 by Bishop Beadon. Local stone, roughly squared and coursed, with Doulting ashlar dressings, Welsh slate roofs, stone chimney stacks.

PALACE EXTERIOR: the main palace now used for public functions and meetings is in 2 storeys with attics, in 7 bays. Plinth, string course between floors, wide buttresses with 2 offsets to bays 2 and 6, coped gables to bays 2, 4 and 6, paired octagonal stacks with openwork cappings to bays 3 and 5. Ground floor has 2-light trefoil-headed plate tracery windows to all but bay 4, similar windows to first floor with added quatrefoil windows with trefoil-arched labels, smaller versions of these windows to attic gables; central porch added c1824, has angled corner buttresses, gable with string and central panel of arms crowned with a mitre, the entrance through a moulded pointed- arched door flanked by two early C19 light fittings. The E wall is in 5 and-a-half bays, with large buttresses to 2 stepped offsets. The first 2 bays have lancets to the ground floor only, but bays 3, 4, and 5 have large 2-light windows with quatrefoil over, and lancets to the ground floor. The last half-bay has a corner stair-turret with stepped offsets. Far right is a deep gabled wing with a large stone-mullioned oriel above a panelled apron with shields of arms, carried on a deep moulded bracket, and with very large buttresses. A tower is set-back from this, adjacent to the moat, with 2 and 3-light cusped casements on 3 floors.

PALACE INTERIOR: the original plan was with hall, solar, gallery and undercroft, the long range divided by a spine wall at each level; this remains the layout, with the addition of an upper floor (not inspected). The ground floor is entered through the central porch to a

103

narrow gallery in 6 bays of quadripartite ribbed vaulting, carried on corbel capitals. In the central wall is a large C16 stone fireplace, brought in the late C19 from the former solar.

The S wall has a doorway with Y-tracery to its head, and a corner door gives to Bishop Burnell’s chapel (qv). The floor is of stone flags. At the N end is a very fine Jacobean open well stair with large square newels, including a double newel at the top landing, supporting carved griffons and with openwork pendants, panelled plaster soffite, painted dado panelling, and a compartmented ceiling with pendants. The undercroft beyond the wall is in 2x5 bays with a central row of Purbeck shafts to quadripartite vaulting, on faceted responds; there is a large stone fireplace of C15 design in the spine wall. The first floor, within Jocelyn’s shell, has C19 detailing; Ferrey complained that much of the work to the ceilings was ‘.... done by an upholsterer from Bath....’, but detailing is very rich, and good replica C19 patterned colourful wallpapers were installed c1970. On the E side is a suite of 3 rooms, with compartmental ceilings. The square room at the head of the stairs has a stone basket-arch fireplace with triple cusping, and retains some C18 panelling, and six 6-panel doors. The long central room has a 24-panel ceiling, and three C19 lighting pendants; at its S end a very rich pair of panelled doors opens to the square S room, in which are visible in the E wall remains of the original windows, which have been blocked externally. This room has no fireplace. The long gallery to the W of the spine wall has two fireplaces, dado panelling, and a ribbed panelled ceiling. The windows are in deep embrasures, and there are three 9-panel C19 doors.

BISHOP’S HOUSE EXTERIOR: returns at the N end, being backed by the moat wall. It is in 2 parallel ranges, with a very narrow courtyard partly filled by C20 building, a cross wing containing a former hall, and opening to a porch at the S end, and a square tower on the NE corner. The S front is crenellated, and has 4 windows on 2 storeys with attic, all flush 2-light stone mullioned casements with cusped heads to the lights; at first floor 2 of the windows have C19 cast-iron small-paned casements, and there are 4 casement hipped dormers behind the parapet. To the left, in a lower wall with raked head are 2 similar casements, and set forward to the right, fronting the 3-storey N/S hall range is a low square tower with two 2-light plate-traceried windows as those in the adjacent Palace, and a round-arched C16 stone outer doorway with moulded and panelled responds and a large keystone with diamond embellishment. The porch is stone paved, with a stone bench to the left, and the inner doorway is a C15 stone 4-centred moulded arch with rosettes, hood-mould, and small diagonal pinnacles at the springing and key, above a carved angel keystone, containing a fine pair of early doors with panel, muntin and mid-rail, all with nail-heads. At the left end is a wide archway into the courtyard, on the site of the gateway seen in the Buck view. There are various lofty yellow brick stacks, including one very large stack to a coped gable in the rear range.

BISHOP’S HOUSE INTERIOR: has been subdivided several times; in the front range are 2 plain rooms, then the inner hall to the porch, with the C15 doorway, a shell niche, and a stone arch matching that to the outer doorway of the porch; this gives to the main stair. N of the hall is a fine C15 oak screen with narrow panels and moulded muntins and mid-rail, and a central round-arched C20 doorway of C16 style. To the right is a large 3light stone casement with transom, and to the left is a stone-flagged cross passage which runs through to a doorway at the moat end. The inner hall has 3 windows as in the outer hall, and the inner side of the screen has raised and moulded panels, and all members

104

embellished, including small-scale chevron to the bressumer; the central C16 doorway has raised diamond keystone and enrichment. A dining room to the N has a peaked moulded wooden rere-arch, and opens in the NW corner to a small square study in the tower. This has a stone alcove in the N wall with a 3-light C16 casement, and in the corner access to a stone spiral stair rising the full height of the tower. There are many 6-panel doors, with raised mouldings, and with square centre panels. The main staircase is C20 with heavy turned balusters to the first floor, and a C19 straight flight with stick balusters in the upper flight. At first landing level the window contains fragments of mediaeval and C16 stained and painted glass; there is a second straight-flight stair between the ranges to the W. Rooms at first floor are generally plainly detailed; the N range had an extra floor inserted, and one bathroom has the lower part of one of the mediaeval oriels in its N wall. The second floor has a through corridor, and has many early 2-panel doors with raised mouldings.

The square end room to the tower has a low relief plastered ceiling to a central rose, the window has early crown glass and a scratched date of 1822. Two of the bedrooms contain the upper parts of the oriels, and these have stone vaulted soffites, one including a carved angel keystone. Over the S range is a 6-bay collar and 2-purlin roof with original rafters, formerly with plaster; the space has 4 dormer windows.

HISTORICAL NOTE: the complex building history, coupled with a splendid setting within its walled moat, makes this Palace an outstanding historic and visual document, with one of the most remarkable structures of the mediaeval period which ‘...represent the grandest aspect of the mediaeval way of life’.(Barley) The first-floor hall represents an outstanding example of its type, contemporary in date with those at St David’s, Dyfed, and Southwark, London. (Buildings of England: Pevsner N: North Somerset and Bristol: London: 1958-: 312; Colchester LS: Wells Cathedral: A History: Shepton Mallet: 1982-: 227-244; Wood M: The English Mediaeval House: London: 1965-: 24 (PLAN); Bony J: The English Decorated Style: London: 1979-: PASSIM; Parker JH: Architectural Antiquities of the City of Wells: Oxford: 1866-; Barley M: Houses and History: London: 1986-: 60-63).

THE BISHOP’S CHAPEL AND THE BISHOP’S PALACE, BISHOP’S PALACE WELLS, MENDIP, SOMERSET Date listed: 12 November 1953 Date of last amendment: 31 May 2000 Grade I Private chapel in Bishop’s Palace. 1275-92 built for Bishop Burnell. Local stone rubble roughly coursed, Doulting stone dressings, shallow pitched roof behind parapet.

EXTERIOR: single storey, 3 bays, set at right angles to, and on the south west corner of, the Bishop’s Palace (qv). Plinth, offsets under main windows, parapet string and crenellated parapet, corner turrets, those on north side square, but the south-west corner octagonal on plan. Wide west elevation has semicircular arched doorway with trefoil inner arch, with Purbeck stone colonettes over a pair of C19 plank doors with decorative iron straps. Above is a segmental pointed-arched window with arched label and 5 cusped lights, in the gable a sexfoil vent. Stair light in corner turrets, arched doorway in south-west corner. Arched openings in parapet. East elevation has a large pointed segmental-headed window with six lights in groups of 3 with interlaced tracery, and a central octofoil, all

105

under a moulded drip with stops. Each side has 3 windows with geometric Decorated tracery. INTERIOR: a single undivided space with lierne vault, having naturalistic foliage to bosses, on triple shafts to C19 carved corbel heads, and with paired shafts to window reveals. Stone floor. The rere-arch to the W door is cusped. Reredos in 5 bays with blank 2-light openings with quatrefoils, below the main sill. Sedilia and piscina, restored by Buckler, 1834, with Purbeck shafts and cusped arches. Windows with mainly C19 grisaille, but some medieval glass fragments to tracery lights. Fittings are C20: the W returns to the stalls have a coved cresting carried on slender paired colonnettes. This chapel is an important element in the development of the Decorated Style in the late C13. (Buildings of England: Pevsner N: North Somerset and Bristol: London: 1958-: 314; Colchester LS: Wells Cathedral: A History: Shepton Mallet: 1982-: 227-244; Bony J: The English Decorated Style: London: 1979-: PASSIM).

BISHOP BURNELL’S GREAT HALL, BISHOP’S PALACE WELLS, MENDIP, SOMERSET Date listed: 12 November 1953 Date of last amendment: 31 May 2000 Grade I Ruins of former mediaeval bishop’s hall house. c1280, part demolished c1830. Local rubble with Doulting stone dressings, no roof. Remains of large 5-bay aisled hall, approx 35m long and 18m wide internally, with screens passage and N porch; solar and undercroft to right (W). What now remains is the N wall, W wall, remnants of the arcade column bases, and a detached turret to the SE corner of the E wall. The N wall has 4 lofty 2-light geometrical Decorated windows, with sexfoil head over cusped lights, and cusped transom; to the right the inner doorway to the former N porch, and at either end are remains of octagonal stair turrets. At the W end, with 2 octagonal turrets, later single-storey C19 service buildings have been added, with a narrow central courtyard; there was already some low-level extension here in 1730 and before. On the S side is a length of low wall extending towards the E, including a pointed doorway with mouldings. Originally this was a most impressive large hall residence. It is believed to have been built after the commencement of the Chapel (qv), and appears in Buck’s view of 1730 apparently still complete, with a deep 2-storey N porch, 3 of the windows (that to the E seems blocked by a solid wall), and 4 roof gables or dormers; the S and E walls were finally demolished in the early C19 by Bishop Law “... to make a more picturesque ruin...”, and, in Pevsner’s words, with the remainder of the Palace complex, “...is the product of the gentle romanticism of the C18 and early C19.” (Colchester LS: Wells Cathedral: A History: Shepton Mallet: 1982-: 232; Buildings of England: Pevsner N: North Somerset and Bristol: London: 1958-: 315).

106

Case Study 3: Diocese of Worcester HARTLEBURY CASTLE, HARTLEBURY, WYCHAVON, WORCESTERSHIRE Date listed: 29 December 1952 Date of last amendment: 29 December 1952 Grade I Bishop’s palace. C15 with late C17 and mid- to late C18 extensions and 1960s remodelling. C18 work by Henry Keene and James Smith of Shifnal. Sandstone ashlar and brick, hipped slate roof to front, tile roof to rear. U-plan, main block aligned north/south, containing C15 hall to north end and C18 saloon (within C15 walls); to rear (west) of hall a former long gallery (divided up as private rooms in 1960s) with C18 library above; south range has C15 chapel projecting forwards (east) with Bishop’s study behind; between this range and saloon is the entrance hall with staircase behind, above entrance hall is the Prince Regent’s Bedroom; north range of late C17 was the kitchen wing, now Hereford and Worcester County Museum. East front: symmetrical central block of one storey with crenellated parapet, central porch and six windows: glazing bar sashes under 2-centred heads with Gothick glazing, installed c1760 - 1770; porch: c1680 semi-circular pediment flanked by ball finials, the pediment bearing Bishop Fleetwood’s (1675 - 1683) arms; lugged architrave to panelled door; on roof is an octagonal cupola with open sides in Chinoiserie Gothick style, to front of pedestal a wind direction indicator connected to the weather vane. The central block is flanked by two wings which break forward of two storeys with attics lit by three hipped dormers, and four windows in slight breaks forward (the wall is of c1680, the sashes c1760 - 1770): 20-pane sashes to first floor, ground floor windows as central block, but of less height; beyond these two wings there is the chapel projecting to the left, and balancing wing to the right, chapel: diagonal buttresses, three stepped lancets (the central one larger) in a recessed panel with 4-centred head (of c1750); four 2-centred headed windows with Y-tracery face into the courtyard; the balancing wing has two windows, that to left a 20-pane sash, to the right.2-light casements of mid- C20, ground floor: two windows similar to central block. Interior: hall: retains C15 five-bay roof of arch braced collar trusses, with ceiling inserted just above collar; the wall posts rest on corbels; fireplace in centre of west wall has bolection moulded surround and overmantel of late C17; geometrical staircase at north end with cast iron handrail (late C18) leads up to an entrance to kitchen range; the entrance at the south end from the porch is set in a tall recess with 4-centred head and moulded jambs and arch, reflected by a similar feature in west wall over opposed doors. Saloon: decorated c1760 with Rococo style papier-maché to walls and ceiling; ceiling panels represent music scores and wind instruments; to each wall two large panels framing spaces for portraits. Entrance hall: overmantel with landscape by Zuccarelli (originally in Saloon whence it had come from Bishop Hurd’s (1781 - 1808) London House). Chapel: by Henry Keene c1750, plaster fan vault, panelling to walls, stalls, reredos and Bishop’s pew in Gothick style; east window: late C19 glass, remnants of C18 glazing by J Rowell in heads of windows. Bishop’s study: has late C17 bolection moulded panelling. Prince Regent’s Bedroom: very plain room with pelmets of c1807 to match the bed hangings, and similar pelmet in adjoining dressing room. Library: 1782 by James Smith of Shifnal, executed by Joseph Bromfield of Shrewsbury, tripartite

107

plan, with bow window to middle of west wall, divisions marked by Ionic columns, outer compartments each have three bays of bookcases; main part has coved ceiling with small central saucer dome, two bookcases flank central fireplace on east wall, each with scrolled pediment; columns marbled and bookcases grained. There is a moat around the house, the east side of which has been filled in, and is still with water to the west. There has been a Bishop’s Palace on this site since at least the mid-C13. One of the most significant of the early works of the Gothick Revival (predates Strawberry Hill); partly inspired from Batty Langley’s pattern books eg the screen between the Chapel and the ante-Chapel. (VCH 3, p 382-3; BoE pp 190-191; E H Pearce, 1926, Hartlebury Castle, with [some notes on Bishops who lived in it and on others who lived elsewhere, London; CL 7 Feb 1931; CL 16 & 23 Sept 1971; Colvin, 1978, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600 - 1840, London, pp 142, 483, 509, 758-9; Dr Timothy Mowl: Journal of Garden History Vol III, no 2, pp 134-143 “The Case for the Enville Museum”).

OLD PRECENTORY, 10 COLLEGE YARD WORCESTER, WORCESTER, WORCESTERSHIRE Date listed: 22 May 1954 Date of last amendment: 22 May 1954 Grade II Early C18. Stucco. 3 storeys. 4 flat headed windows, with channelled keystones. Rusticated quoins. Early C19 porch, right with stone pilaster consoles above recessed door.

2 storey wing, left, with 1 window as above. Moulded stone coping. Early C19 railings.

Good original staircase. The house is known as the Old Precentory and stands on the site of the Cathedral Charnel. N.M.R. photographs. All the listed buildings in College Yard form a group with the Cathedral

Case Study 4a: Diocese of Carlisle ROSE CASTLE, DALSTON, CARLISLE, CUMBRIA Date listed: 01 April 1957 Date of last amendment: 01 April 1957 Grade I Castle, residence of the Bishop of Carlise. Built on the site of an earlier castle: probably late C13 with licences to crenellate 1336 and 1355: Strickland Tower c1400-1419: 1488 tower for Bishop Bell: 1522-4 tower for Bishop Kite: partly destroyed during the Civil War and repaired by William Heveningham as a private house 1653-5: alterations of 1673-5 for Bishop Rainbow by William Thackery: alterations for Bishop Smith by Thomas Machell: alterations for Bishop Lyttelton 1762-9: extensive alterations and additions for Bishop Percy by Thomas Rickman 1828-31: alterations dated 1955. Chapel: 1489 for Bishop Bell, altered 1660-63 for Bishop Sterne, altered 1673-5 for Bishop Rainbow by William Thack-

108

ery and further alterations for Bishop Percy, as above. Large blocks of red sandstone on chamfered plinths; string courses and battlemented parapets; slate and lead roofs; tall C19 candlestick chimney stacks. Four 3-storey towers, hall and chapel in L-shape, forming 2 sides of an originally quadrangular shaped castle. Entrance facade: 3-storey entrance tower of 2-bays has pointed entrance and 2-light Gothic windows. Similar lower 2 bays to right are also by Rickman. Remains of C14 inner curtain wall to left now forms rear wall of chapel. Bell’s Tower to left, Strickland’s Tower to extreme left attached by lowered inner curtain wall. Garden facade in L-shape: right is the chapel, with 2-light windows, larger on upper floor, 3-light east window. Broad buttress projecting from east wall supports C19 open Gothic bellcote. Strickland’s Tower to extreme right has external stone steps to first floor entrance. Projecting circular stair turret from first floor continues above parapet. To left: hall with stone mullioned Gothic windows. End wall to left was altered in 1955 with 2-light stone mullioned windows in keeping with the building, dated over entrance. Rear facade: 3-storey Kite’s Tower has blocked ground floor entrance and 2-light stone-mullioned windows. Percy’s Tower and similar extension to left are by Rickman. See J. Wilson, Rose Castle, 1912; J.F. Curwen, Castles & Towers of Cumberland & Westmorland, 1913, pp227-234; Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society, old series, ii, pp156-165 and new series, lvi, pp132-141; Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, new series, 27, pp61-76. All other associated buildings are listed separately. Outbuildings are of little interest.

Case Study 4b: Diocese of Durham AUCKLAND CASTLE, AUCKLAND CASTLE PARK (east off) BISHOP AUCKLAND, WEAR VALLEY, DURHAM Date listed: 21 April 1952 Date of last amendment: 21 April 1952 Grade I Bishop’s palace. Official residence of Bishop of Durham, diocesan office, and 2 independent flats. Manor house probably begun for Bishop du Puiset (1153-95), completed in first half of C13, altered and enlarged for Bishop Bek (1284-1311) (Cunningham 1990).

Scotland wing probably C16 long gallery for Bishop Tunstall, later used as granary. MidC18 division into rooms, and c1980 alterations and insertion of mezzanine floor. Northsouth range, alterations and additions include c1530 addition of south dining room for Bishops Ruthal and Tunstall, and substantial rebuilding dated 1664 for Bishop Cosin. Also 1767-72 for Bishops Trevor and Egerton possibly by John Carr, and c1795 for Bishop Barrington by James Wyatt. Medieval parts coursed rubble, later parts mostly coursed squared sandstone, with ashlar dressings. Roofs Lakeland slate and lead, Scotland wing roof concrete tiles. PLAN: irregular. Medieval manor included great hall running west-east at east of site and with its own services at east end. Great hall is now Chapel of St Peter (qv). To west of this, probably originally with extruded stair in angle between, a kitchen range ran north-south. From this range the Scotland wing runs east-west. EXTERIOR: east

109

elevation: 2 storeys of varied heights, 1:1:1:4 bays. At left, one bay mid-late C18 projects slightly, and has flat-headed 3-light ground floor window with Gothick glazing bars and traceried heads under label mould. Tall sash above has intersecting glazing bars in Tudorarched window with dripmould. At right of this bay, straight join to 2-bay L-plan with stone-mullioned 3-light windows with trefoil tracery and moulded spandrels under flat head with dripmould; shallow elliptical head to door at right to private apartments and offices. Large window above has stone Y tracery between 2 lights with Gothick glazing bars under dripmould. Similar windows in next bay breaking forward with polygonal projecting bay window to front and 2 windows in returns, with ground-floor dripstring, the front bay window and the rear on the return with ogee heads to ground-floor lights, below band (originally with battlemented parapet before upper floor added) with richly carved arms of Ruthall and Tunstall and moulded surrounds. Moulded plinth to this build, and quoins at right. Set back above is second floor of C17 front range, with 3-light stonemullioned traceried windows, the left blocked. 4-bay state room range set back to right has high ashlar plinth, rainwater heads dated 1664, and tall first floor. 3-light ground-floor windows have stone mullions and heads, and first-floor sashes have Gothick glazing bars, except in 4th bay which is obscured by lower projection containing porch to Chapel of St Peter. All parapets battlemented, the state room with full-height buttresses with pinnacles, the angles with ogee domes of Cosin’s work as in Chapel of St Peter. Low pitched and flat roofs except Scotland Wing which has steeply pitched roofs to main and shorter 2nd rear parallel range. Left return has symmetrical south elevation to C18 addition, with 1:3:1 windows, the centre a canted bay. Set-back low-pitched gable to left of centre has blocked roundel under battlements. Similar gable set back at right to state rooms. Scotland wing at west: south elevation 3 storeys, 10 windows. Large square buttresses with many offsets to first 2 floors to right of 4th window and almost full height to left of 3rd window from right end. Coped truncated chimney projection at centre. Ground floor has Tudor stone heads and label moulds to ledged boarded door at left and half-glazed door at right; flat-headed windows, all renewed and most blocked, with chamfered stone surrounds and label moulds. Sashes, smaller on first floor, have fine glazing bars with Gothic heads. Left return has first-floor stone oriel on stone corbels; eaves raised in brick from swept to straight pitch. Rear of whole building has much medieval detail and fine C18 Gothick work.

INTERIOR: entrance hall to domestic range and offices has mid C18 Classical stone arcades. Ground-floor library to right has beams on corbels, and truncated stone pillar in centre of bay window. Offices to left have mid-C18 detail including Greek key fret to fireplace in Secretary’s room. Above, private apartments at rear, partly on mezzanine floor, have broad glazing bars to windows to west and in part of Scotland wing which is included, and blocked narrow splayed medieval windows partly revealed in cupboards on east wall. At north end of this a private oratory contains re-used C16 panelling with painted heraldic devices of various European monarchs and of English counties along frieze. Raine describes such panelling as being in `the housekeeper’s room’ which seems to have been in the bay with projecting window to right of the private entrance. Rooms at south in extension by Wyatt have late C18 stucco decoration. Rich mid-C18 rococo decoration to dining room, known as King Charles Room, including chimney piece with cornice breaking forward in scroll brackets, and pilasters and inlay of coloured marble with carved panel on frieze showing children and bird’s nest. Ceiling has stucco of Italian York school with central sunburst and rich mouldings, plus 6-panel doors in architraves, the mid C18 ones with cornices, some with broken pediments, on pulvinated friezes. State rooms:

110

entrance is through ground-floor room known formerly as the Gentlemen’s Hall, which has Wyatt decoration applied to older structure with beams and ceiling stuccoed with blind tracery, and Gothick chimney piece with re-used C17 carved wood overmantel. Wyatt inserted Imperial stair in W end of this room, with paired shafted Gothick balusters and ramped moulded handrail. Half-landing and landing windows are large sashes with delicate glazing bars. All doors in the state rooms are panelled with blind tracery, from the vestibule onwards, which like those to all rooms and cupboards in the major rooms is in Gothick arch with dripmould. Wyatt divided Cosin’s long chamber, its wide floorboards still in situ, to make ante-room and throne room, both with Gothick detail including ribbed stucco ceiling panels. Ante-room has canted corners with arched niches. Throne room has delicate stucco shallow canopy to throne, and grey marble or limestone Gothick chimney piece.

State dining room to south is mid C18 with rich decoration including chimney piece with terms supporting cornice over moulded frieze, deep dado rail, coved ceiling with guilloche panels with 2 leaf swirls for lights and central painted arms of Bishop Trevor. At north end of this range Bishop Trevor added private apartments now known as the Victoria Flat. They have fine mid C18 decoration including pronounced dado rails, with dentilled enrichment in the bedroom, and with good chimney pieces in 2 bedrooms. Some ceiling cornices, all doors 6-panelled, and in north room, Bishop Trevor’s arms on chimney piece. One room divided mid C19 to provide kitchen and bathroom, but canted corner chimney breast survives although chimney piece removed or obscured. In the angled passage to this flat from a narrow stair to left of the chapel porch there are walls which must be C18 lining; a small door high in this wall, at first-floor level, reveals painted wall decoration extending across 2 floor levels, showing a Cross of Lorraine and other heraldic devices - difficult to see. The Cross of Lorraine appears as part of Bishop Bek’s patriarchal seal (Raine p.22).

This painting could have been executed to decorate the grand stair which was removed by Wyatt. In east corridor of this flat a cupboard with C17 doors, which is in the rear of the west wall of the chapel. Former kitchen range has 3 octagonal stone piers down centre, fireplace detail obscured by boiler fittings. North door of principal room late C15, ledged and boarded with hollow-moulded Tudor arch, has part of inscription carved in spandrels.

Similar inscription in serving hatch of Durham Castle kitchen inscribed 1499 for Bishop Fox is complete and reads Est Deo Gracia, suggesting that a door to the left has been removed. In small room to north of this, now fitted as public toilets, a creeing trough is set in square mortared rubble block beside steps to right of door. Scotland wing shows evidence of early fabric on ground floor although much obscured by plaster and removed by alterations, with deeply splayed blocked door in centre north, with smoothly dressed octagonal stone slab with rough edges set on round stone pedestal beside door. In west bay a deeply-chamfered door. In short north range c1980 staircase inserted. On first floor a damaged elliptical fire lintel on south wall, now high above inserted mezzanine floor.

Offices at west end include boxed-in medieval pointed arch, garderobe chamber on north wall, and mid C18 chimney piece and stucco ceiling cornice. Upper floor rooms have c1700 2-panel doors. Roof partly inspected. Throne room has king and queen posts with bolted struts to rafters from posts, and much old graffiti made by workmen. Scotland wing has collared pegged trusses with purlins at ridge and 2 levels at sides. The full account of this building’s history by Raine gives many extracts from building accounts but must be read bearing in mind that Raine had not understood that the medieval hall is the present chapel. (Raine J: History of Auckland Castle: Durham: 1852-; Archaeologia Aeliana series 2: Hodgson J F: Article VIII The Chapel of Auckland Castle (for 1896): Newcastle upon

111

Tyne: 1847-: 113-240; Billings R: Architectural Antiquities of the County of Durham (1974 ed): Newcastle: 1846-; Mackenzie E: County Palatine of Durham: Newcastle: 1834-: 294; Medieval Architecture and Its Intellectual Context: Cunningham J: Auckland Castle: Some Recent Discoveries: London: 1990-: 81-90; Boyle: The County of Durham: 1892-: 483497).

CHAPEL OF ST PETER AT AUCKLAND CASTLE, AUCKLAND CASTLE BISHOP AUCKLAND, WEAR VALLEY, DURHAM Date listed: 21 April 1952 Date of last amendment: 21 April 1952 Grade I Domestic aisled hall, later chapel, with terrace and steps. c1190. For Bishop du Puiset (on stylistic evidence), possibly on foundations of earlier hall, completed by 1249. Aisle walls probably raised by Bishop Bek (1284-1311) replacing smaller gables. Conversion to chapel including rebuilding south wall, renewing clerestory, and refacing east and west walls, 1661-5 for Bishop Cosin. Craftsmen John Langestaffe mason, Marke Todd and James Hulle, joiners, Abraham Smith, John Brasse and Richard Herring, carpenters and carvers (Raine, Boyle). Aisle floors raised to level of nave, and chapel refloored, for Bishop van Mildert in 1827. Further restorations for Bishop Lightfoot, and 1978-83 for the Church Commissioners. MATERIALS: rusticated ashlar, coursed squared stone north wall, roof not visible. PLAN: chapel has 4-bay aisled nave and chancel with screen, to west full-width vestibule. South porch to west entrance passage and robing room.

EXTERIOR: east elevation has tall 5-light window with geometric tracery, and 2-light aisle windows with trefoil heads. Below windows blocked arches and relieving arch are vestiges of screens passage of former hall. In first bay of north wall a similar arch under the window is also blocked and was part of the domestic hall arrangements. South elevation refaced for Cosin has rich rustication, much with lozenge jewels. 3-light aisle windows have reticulated and decorated tracery. 7 clerestory windows probably for Cosin, with segmental heads and modified geometric tracery. Tall pinnacled buttresses, at aisle and clerestory angles polygonal with ogee coping. Crocketed pinnacles corbelled between clerestory lights. West gable has tall 4-light window with reticulated tracery, and at top a well-cut inscription ADORATE DOMINUM IN ATRIO SANCTO EIUS and Cosin’s arms above. All parapets battlemented. South-east entrance projects with canted arcaded C18 Gothic porch below 2-light window under battlemented parapet. In porch, richly carved C17 doors. Terrace wall and steps at east end. Shallow stone L-plan steps flank wall with ashlar coping, the end sections forming parapets to steps. At centre, one 1881 inscription recording Bishop Lightfoot’s work and his setting up of the second inscription, dated 1752 `JOSEPHUS EPISCOPUS FECIT’ must relate to work done by Bishop Butler who began major improvements to the grounds. INTERIOR has black and white marble floor, 4-bay arcades, west screen, and panelled beamed roof on arched braces and corbelled wall posts. Arcades have many-moulded pointed arches on quatrefoil piers with shaft rings, north and south shafts sandstone, east and west shafts Frosterley limestone which is also used for capitals and arches. Central bays are shorter. West responds are head corbels, and capitals waterleaf, the southern more elaborate; others moulded. Round lessenes above piers support large figures of angels. In west wall 3 arches of a blind arcade with stiff leaf decoration, discovered in 1980s restoration, have been left exposed; this was the dais

112

end of the hall. In north aisle western bay a pointed arch is also revealed, with stiff leaf capital. 3 steps to altar with carved Frosterley limestone and oak reredos 1884 by Hodgson Fowler in Perpendicular style, carving by P de Wispelaere of Bruges. Woodwork for Cosin in his typical style, mixing Gothic and Baroque, includes pulpit and reading desk, chancel stalls with principal canopies, and magniďŹ cent carved oak screen with swags of fruit and foliage. MONUMENTS include Frosterley marble grave cover in centre of nave with long inscription to Bishop Cosin; seated ďŹ gure of Bishop Trevor 1775 by Nollekens.

Ceiling richly carved and painted with armorial bearings especially those of Bishop Cosin.

C19 armorial bearings of Bishops set on aisle walls. Stained glass mostly by Burlison and Grylls. In west entrance vestibule, arms of Bishop Cosin in stained glass. (Raine J: History of Auckland Castle: Durham: 1852-: 45; Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context: Cunningham J: Auckland Castle: Some Recent Discoveries: London: 1990-: 81-90; Mackenzie E: County Palatine of Durham: Newcastle: 1834-: 294; Archaeologia Aeliana series 2: Hodgson J F: Article VIII The Chapel of Auckland Castle (for 1896): Newcastle upon Tyne: 1847-: 113-240; Archaeologia Aeliana series 2: Hodgson J F: Article VI The Chapel of Auckland Castle - Addenda (for 1897): Newcastle upon Tyne: 1847-: 113-240; Boyle: The County of Durham: 1892-: 483-497).

113