History of Church-2

Post date: Mar 02, 2012 8:27:27 PM

This is a continuation of a previous snippet. See History of the Church-1.

12.— We may now turn our thoughts to the fabric and seating arrangements of the Church. The following paragraphs are extracted from a manuscript paper, endorsed " Wateringbury, Kent. Henry Stevens," and kept in a MS. book entitled Vicarage of Wateringbury, in the Vicar's possession : —

" In 1824. The Church was enlarged by turning an arch in the north wall, by which means a gallery above and a space beneath were obtained for 15 pews besides free seats for 224 persons. This was effected partly by subscriptions and partly by a grant from the Church Building Society.

"In the year 1856. The Church was again enlarged by the addition of a South Aisle, Joseph Clarke, Esq., F.S.A", Dioc. Arch., being the architect; and the number of sittings thus obtained were for poorer inhabitants 244, for others 224, for children 158; in all 626."

13.— The following records are copied from the Board of Benefactions which is exhibited at the west end of the north aisle. It will be noticed that there is no reference to the enlargement of 1856 : —

"1824, This Church was enlarged at a cost of £873 7s. 0d. , by which means 27 additional sittings were obtained, and are in addition to 96 provided in 1818.

''1883/1884 The North Aisle was rebuilt and enlarged, the Chancel lengthened and Church restored at a cost of £2,118 7s. 1d., exclusive of private gifts.

"1886. A new spire was put to the Church after the destruction of the old one by fire on Sunday, 28th February, 1886."

14.— There is no further evidence of the provision of new seats in 1818; but there can be little doubt that in that year the nave or body of the church was re-seated. At that time the nave had no aisles : the side walls ran along the lines of the present aisle-arcades (a) and contained large perpendicular windows. A rough calculation proves that, making allowance for the space occupied by the pulpit and certain square pews that are known to have remained long after that date, the nave of the church would hold seats for about 100 worshippers.

15.—The accounts of the architect and the builders who did the work,of building a north aisle in 1824 are now in the parish chest; but no copy of specification, contract, or plan can be found. The present aisle and its arcade of three arches were erected in 1883-4, when all structural evidence of the form of the older aisle was swept away; but enquiries from parishioners whose recollection goes back to the old order of things have elicited some interesting facts. There was a single arch of communication between the nave and the aisle. This arch was wider than the present chancel-arch (b), and was ' four-centred' in shape (c), i.e. an arch similar to that of the present vestry doorway, on a much larger scale. It was inserted, of course, in the old north wall of the nave. It is probable that where the pulpit now stands a short bit of that old wall remained much like the bit of wall still remaining at the east end of the south aisle arcade, and that from it the arch stretched nearly to the pillar that now stands at the end of Miss Wells' sitting, the last of the chief range of pews on that side in the centre of the church. From thence to the west wall another and longer piece of the old wall containing (we believe) one of the old perpendicular windows, remained (d). The pews just mentioned extended under the arch, perhaps to a foot or two within the aisle. Then came an alley by which the sittings could be reached from the aisle; and beyond the alley there were several rows of child seats on a rising platform running east and west, so that the children sat facing south (e).

16.—At the west end of the nave there was made, either at that time or earlier, a gallery, called the singing-gallery and sometimes the men's gallery. The present gallery was constructed out of it. It was much lower and extended further east than the present one—probably up to the west respond of the new aisle-arch. In the new aisle another gallery was constructed, on the same level as the old singing-gallery. The seats in that gallery faced south—but I confess to an utter inability, after several attempts, to interpret the numbers of sittings and pews given in the notes which I have quoted. Access to the new gallery was gained by a staircase at the west end of the aisle, rising from south to north. At the bottom of the stairs was a small lobby entered by doorways both from the aisle and from the exterior (f)

17.—Of the erection of the south aisle, in 1856, when the Rev. Henry Stevens was vicar and Messrs. John Beale Jude and Edward J. Goodwin were churchwardens, I have discovered no facts beyond those noted in the extract above quoted and a minute in the vestry book. The minute records resolutions that, as the sum wanted had been promised in voluntary subscriptions, no vote for the purpose should be made, that the vicar and churchwardens, with Messrs. S. Lucas and Chas. Leney and James Fremlin should form a committee to carry on the business of the enlargement of the Church, and that the churchwardens should be requested to collect the promised subscriptions at once. The aisle, however, tells its own tale. The peculiar and rather ugly design of the columns of the arcade, running up rather high without capitals, was prompted, I believe, by the fact that the singing-gallery extended in front of the western column. The thickness of the wall above the arcade was made rather thinner than the original wall, which it replaced ; but there still remains the upper part of the original wall with its original thickness partly supported by corbels, as may be seen from within the aisle. Two large three-light perpendicular windows which were in the wall were rebuilt with new glazing, one at either end of the new aisle, where they may now be seen (g). William Sharpe, the plumber, tells me that his father, a plumber before him, glazed the western window, and scratched his initials on one of the quarries of glass. The porch was rebuilt in its present position, the old materials being used for the new work.

18.—We now pass on to the years 1883-4, when Mr. Spencer Phillips was vicar, Mr. Charles Leney was vicar's warden, and Messrs. Thomas White and R. H. Fremlin were successively people's warden. I have not succeeded in finding any plans or specifications of the alterations then made. The following minute of a vestry meeting appears under date 19th May, 1883 :—" It was resolved that the consent of Parishioners be given to the carrying out of the alterations and additions to the Parish Church as proposed by W. 0. Milne, Esq., architect. The proposed alterations and additions to consist of—

I. Taking away the North Gallery and building a new North Aisle.

II. Re-pewing the whole of the body of the Church, with the exception of the South Aisle.

III. Renovating and lengthening the Chancel.

IV. Providing a new heating apparatus."

It is said that the south wall of the Chancel was found to be in in a very bad state (h) : it was entirely rebuilt, the old two-light windows being replaced in the new wall; and an old piscina, found blocked up under the easternmost of these two windows, was preserved and placed in the wall a little farther east, side by side with a new niche for vessels. The east wall was removed and rebuilt with a new window nine feet farther to the east. The window in the original east wall is said to have been a very poor one of two lights, and to have contained in the glazing some remains of armorial escutcheons. It is also said that higher up, in the gable, there was a small light. These have all vanished. The nave of the Church was re-seated with the open pews that now remain, and the new north aisle was furnished with the existing free sittings for about 120 or 130 adults. The three arches of the arcade are not equal in span: this is due to the desire of the architect to arrange the position of the columns so that they should coincide with the divisions of the roof, whereby the wall-posts of the roof-beams might remain undisturbed immediately above the columns and between the arches. The renovation and enlargement of the chancel was carried out at the expense of the Lay Rector, while the cost of building the north aisle and re-seating the nave of the Church was defrayed by public subscription. The architect was Mr. W. 0. Milne. Some accounts were published in the earliest numbers of the Parish Magazine, commenced apparently in 1883. Mr. Fremlin has recently handed to me a complete list of subscribers.

19. — We are now in a position to speak of the seating arrangements of the nave between 1824 and 1883. Mr. John Featherstone, who was born in 1834, has carefully described to me his recollections and has enabled me to note them on a sketch plan of the nave. As a boy he sat in the singing-gallery and had an excellent view of certain arrrangements which impressed themselves upon his memory. At the east end of the nave and on the right hand or south side there was a " three-decker"—a huge structure comprising the parson's reading-desk with the clerk's seat below and the pulpit with its sounding-board above. (The accounts of 1824 prove that this structure underwent alteration in that year.) Close up to the three-decker and on the west side of it was the Vicarage pew; and to the west of that again a square pew, occupied about that time (as shown by a Valuation of the Parish, 1838, now in the Church Chest) by Mr. James Woodbridge, who lived in the house now called Wateringbury Lodge. On the north side of the nave, opposite to the pulpit and close up to the chancel-steps, there was a very large square pew, hung round with curtains, and containing a table in the middle. This must have been the Wateringbury Place pew, seeing that it was occupied by Alderman Lucas (i) until his death in 1848. Mr. Featherstone does not remember what kind of pews there were in the chancel at this early period, but he remembers Mr. Elvy, formerly Rector of Loose, sitting then on the south side, and persistently reading a book during the sermon ! The pews in the nave, other than the square pews referred to, were of the old-fashioned high sort, closed with doors.

20.—No one seems to remember when the big pew referred to in the previous paragraph was removed. The three-decker on the opposite side of the nave was abolished in 1883, but the big pew had vanished long before that date—certainly before 1865. Possibly it was removed in 1857 when the south aisle was built, and some alteration of the sittings in the nave may well have been made. Possibly it was removed soon after the Alderman's death. The Alderman acquired a right to the use of the chancel as early as 1829, when he became lessee of Canon Court and the rectorial tithe; but he certainly did not use that right in his own person, though he may have allowed his relations (j) and possibly some of his tenants to use it. After his death, but how soon is not clear, his grandson and successor Samuel Lucas (who assumed that surname) used it, and when in 1857 he leased the Place, and went to live with his mother at the Red House, he allowed his tenant, Mr. William Brown, to use it also. Sam Lucas, as he was popularly called, like his grandsire, was lessee of Canon Court and of the rectorial tithe, which he bought in 1870 ; and I believe it was as lessee and owner, successively, of the rectorial tithe, and not as owner of the Place, that he (like the Style family who leased the tithe in the previous century) had a right to use the chancel. This is interesting and important in view of the fact that later owners of the Place, who have not been lessees or owners of the rectorial tithe, have used the chancel, and seem to have considered that they had a right to do so as owners of the Place. In reference to this claim the evidence recorded in the previous paragraph is important. Alderman Lucas when he came to the Place in 1821, used the big pew in the nave. That is good evidence that the big pew, not the chancel, was attached to Wateringbury Place. Had it been attached to any other house in the parish he could not have used it. He did not occupy the chancel because he was not then lessee of Canons Parsonage, and after he became lessee he continued to use the big pew, as the Style family had probably done before him, in spite of the fact that the lease then gave him a lien on the use of the chancel. Indeed it is probable that the site of the big pew in the nave, in the best position in the nave, had long before been appropriated to the Lords of the Manor of Wateringbury, who had their seat at Wateringbury Place, when as yet they had no connection with " the parsonage," the '' farmers," or tenants of which would alone exercise a right to use the chancel. It was before the Reformation that the appropriation of sites and the erection of pews in the naves of our churches by such big-wigs commenced, giving their successors in title prescriptive rights with which even the all-powerful church-wardens cannot interfere. Such rights, in respect of pews in the naves of our churches, attach only to a house and not to persons or lands (k). In this case then the right to the big pew would belong to the successive occupants of Wateringbury Place.

21.—There is evidence that Alderman Lucas, after he became the tenant of the Dean and Chapter founded his claim to the use of the chancel as a burying place for himself and his family, as the Styles had done before him, upon the fact that he was the lessee of the rectorial tithe. If he did not exercise that claim it was because he found the chancel already full of graves. He therefore begged the parishioners to allow him to rebuild the vestry, on the north side of the chancel, and to give to him and his descendants a right to a vault beneath it. This was carried out in 1838. His letters and other documents in his handwriting, communicated to Churchwarden James Woodbridge in reference to this matter, may be printed in full in a later issue of this Magazine : one or two extracts will suffice now to prove our point. They are as follows :—

(1) "As respects the Chancell—I believe my holding the Great Tithes, and being subject to the upholding and keeping the Chancell in repair gives me the power of making a Vault there, and I have (if it were necessary) the concurrence of the Dean and Chapter as respects the Chancell."

(2) " Aldn. Lucas as Leassee of the Great Tithes having a claim in his own right to the use of the Cancell.''

It is thus clear that the Alderman claimed this right not as owner of Wateringbury Place but as lessee of the rectorial tithe.

22.—The last two owners of the Place, viz. Alderman Sir Horatio Davies (who purchased it from Mr. G. Stockdale) and Sir George Donaldson, have claimed a right to the use of the chancel in spite of the fact that they have not been owners or lessees of either Canon Court Farm or the rectorial tithe. I have not seen the deed of conveyance to them, and cannot imagine on what legal ground they have based their claim. It may be that they have merely assumed the correctness of a popular belief that the right attaches to the occupants of Wateringbury Place. It is easy to see how that popular impression originated. For a long time previous to the sale of the Place to Alderman Davies the owners of the Place had sat in the chancel. The parishioners did not know, nor were they concerned to inquire, upaa what ground that right was exercised. Moreover I believe that Alderman Davies himself honestly thought that he exercised the right as owner of the Place, in spite of the fact that (as he himself told me) the late Vicar, Mr. Spencer Phillips, in a conversation which he had with the Alderman on a certain occasion expressed a doubt whether he had such a right. The Vicar seems to have been well informed knowing that the right attached to the rectorial tithe which the Alderman had not purchased from Mr. Stockdale, but to have thought it politic not to press his objection by upholding the rights of

Mr. Stockdale, who had left the parish, as against a resident family who regularly attended the church services and were useful and sympathetic parishioners.

23.—This Paper may be closed with a suggestion that possibly Mr. Stockdale, who, as we have seen, purchased the rectorial tithe when he purchased the Place, did not know the history of his right to the use of the chancel. He seems to have defrayed the cost of rebuilding the chancel in 1883-4 under the impression that it was incumbent on him to do so; whereas in fact the burden of structural repairs had previously (in 1878) been laid upon Lord Falmouth as purchaser of Canon Court, and Mr. Stockdale would have sufficiently preserved his right to the use of the chancel-seats by consenting to and paying for any alteration then made in those seats. As I interpret the facts Mr. Stockdale by his work of supererogation neither strengthened nor diminished the claim, which I believe he still has,to the use of the chancel.

Notes:

(a). An arcade is a series of arches springing from columns or piers and supporting a wall above. The word aisle, more properly spelt aile, comes from the Latin ala, meaning a wing : an aisle is a comparatively narrow addition to the central body of a church along its side, and separated from it by an arcade. It is a common mistake to speak of the central alley of a church as its ' centre-aisle."

(b). So says Mr. Jer. Harris.

(c). Such is the conclusion drawn from a consideration of all the data. It has been confirmed by a vivid description given me by Mr. W. W. Blest.

(d). It is not unlikely that the window now in the west end of the north aisle was removed thence and rebuilt its present position in 1883.

(e). Mr. Jeremiah Harris is my authority for many of these details.

(f) Our little bit of structural evidence is interesting. The carved stone corbel which carries the wall-post of the roof of the nave, above the second column on the north side, is new. Doubtless it was made in 1883-4, when the present arcade was built in place of the single arch erected in 1824. The need for a new corbel must have arisen from the fact that in the erection of the arch of 1824 the old corbel was necessarily removed to make room for it.

(g) They appear in their original position in a pencil sketch of the church which was drawn by Mr. Jeremiah Harris when a boy, in the year 1852.

(h) Mr. Jer. Harris' sketch shows it shored up with a massive sloping angle-buttress.

(i) Mr. Richard Fremlin confirms this. The Fremlins' sitting was in the aisle and adjoined the big pew, and Mr. Eichard, as a boy, used to delight to peep through the curtains at its occupants. He was then quite little, and was allowed :o stand on the seat of the Fremlin pew.

(j) His daughters lived in the parish. Mr.[sic] F. M. Lancaster, Sam's mother, lived at the Red House, built by the Alderman, and Mrs. Rennie at Gransdon.

(k) The right to the use of the chancel of our churches usually belongs to the Lay Rector, i.e., the owner of the Great Tithes.

G.M.L.

* Since the above was written, I have been favoured with the loan of a copy of the Particulars and Conditions of Sale of Wateringbury Place, as advertised for sale on 24th October, 1901. Under "General Remarks," it is said :—" The Church of St. John the Baptist, which is in a very secluded position adjoining the grounds, has a private entrance from these. The Chancel is included in the sale of the estate." And under " Conditions of Sale ":—" The Vendor shall not be bound to prove the legal character of the Manor of Wateringbury .... or its boundaries, constituents ....and the Purchaser shall assume without evidence that the Chancel of the Church is appendant or appurtenant to or goes along with the said Manor or reputed Manor....'' This is truly a pure assumption ! It is interesting to note that Alderman Davies insured the chancel, and that Sir George Donaldson has kept up the payment of the premium in spite of the fact that soon after he purchased the Place his solicitor" satisfied himself" that his client was not under obligation to keep the chancel in repair. The question arises, Why did the solicitor advise the continuance of an obligation which was laid by deed upon Lord Falmouth ?