Mark Burkill
The Latimer Trust
The
Parish System
The same
yesterday, today and forever?
© 2005 by
Mark Burkill
ISBN 0 946307
52 0
Published by the Latimer Trust
www.latimertrust.org
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
2. The Origins of the Parish System |
6 |
|
The Growing Inadequacies of the Parish System |
25 |
|
4. The Parish System and Anglicanism |
41 |
|
5. The Parish System and Mission Today |
52 |
|
62 |
Introduction
What is normally known as ‘the parish system’ is intimately associated with the structure and organisation of the Church of England. At its best it has noble ideals of evangelising the nation and providing pastoral care for all. Yet its practical expression today frequently frustrates the ministry of many Christians, particularly where there is an overriding concern with maintaining the status quo and an unthinking adherence to boundaries and geographical territoriality.
Long ago JC Ryle
warned about the dangers of the parish system an idol[1]
and there are numerous current expressions of the frustrations that many have
with its practical expression in the twenty-first century. These criticisms
come from a variety of theological perspectives. Thus Edward Norman, who has a
high-church background, speaks about today as a “time when the parish system is
proving to be wholly inadequate to meet modern social needs, and when it is
anyway simultaneously collapsing under financial constraints.”[2]
Anthea Jones, despite her love for the parish and its history evident in A Thousand Years of the English Parish,
can say “It has become imperative to rethink the parish.”[3]
Nick Spencer, an evangelical seeking to present a way forward for the parish system
today, feels moved to say that “the parish system was not brought down from
The purpose of this study is to understand the origins of what is termed the parish system and to explore its association with Anglicanism. It aims also to demonstrate that the parish system is ineffective and incapable of delivering what it claims in many areas, and that this is not merely because of social change. The study highlights how many seek to turn a blind eye to the way that the growth of theological diversity has rendered the system meaningless in a number of respects. Finally ways in which the best ideals of the parish system may be expressed in Christian mission today are explored.
The key thing to
bear in mind in discussing the merits of the parish system and its application
today is that it is a structural and organisational feature of English
Christianity and as such it should serve Christian mission rather than hinder
that work. This is indeed how pastoral care was understood before the Norman
conquest, long before the current parochial system appeared: “What unites them
[the early medieval churches] is not a specific set of pastoral duties but
their approach to achieving their theological aims. Organization is of
secondary importance”.[7]
That was the conviction of those who were involved in Christian ministry in the
earliest centuries of the Church’s presence in
In regarding the
parish system as very much a secondary feature of English Christianity we are
doing no more than following the priorities of the New Testament. The progress
of the Christian community at
Return to Contents
The Origins of the Parish System
It is not usually appreciated that the
Christian Church existed in
Two more recent authoritative studies confirm this. Norman Pounds in his History of the English Parish says “A system of parishes had begun to evolve during the middle Anglo/Saxon period and by the end of the twelfth century it had been extended over most of the country.”[9] Similarly Jones, in her A Thousand Years of the English Parish, speaks of the term ‘parish’ in these terms: “The word parish implied two things: spiritual care of a group of people, and a territory with definite boundaries. The territorial pattern of English parishes emerged gradually and was substantially in place by the end of the twelfth century.”[10]
We must particularly note that it was issue of the tithes which made parish boundaries a matter of such importance at this period. Jones points out that “Gratian’s collection of church canons about 1140, the Decretum, reinforced their territorial rather than their pastoral aspect; he helped establish that tithes should be paid to the church within whose parish the land was situated”.[11] She remarks how this had the effect of refining the concept of a parish:
“The bishops’ policy in their councils was to protect the rights of older churches and to resist any increase in lay power. It was established that only one parish church could have responsibility for the cure of souls of a group of inhabitants; ‘within one boundary there are not to be many baptismal churches, but one, with a number of chapels’, and that the parish church should have a permanent endowment of glebeland, tithes, and offerings which constituted the ‘title’ of that church. Burial rights, baptismal rights and tithes became the ‘normal definition’ of a parish church. This meant that ‘strict parochial boundaries of the kind familiar to us today can never have existed before the twelfth century.”[12]
Pounds also remarks on the elaboration of canon law that was taking place at this time and how tithe differed from other financial burdens in being territorial rather than personal.[13] Significantly, Jones can then refer to the result of these developments as being a “freezing of the pattern of parishes” at this point in time.[14]
If we are going to assess the appropriate role the parish system should have today then we need to understand both its origins and development. Furthermore we will also need to appreciate the variety of ways in which pastoral care and mission was undertaken both before and after this ‘freezing’ of the pattern of parishes. It therefore makes sense to look at the development of pastoral care and mission prior to the twelfth century and then to look at the system from that period onwards.
Pastoral care and mission before the twelfth century
Christianity arrived in
Frend sees the
work of Martin of Tours as vital. In
In understanding
the development of pastoral care in
On the arrival of
Augustine there were at least seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms[19]
with rather unstable boundaries. Although the instructions which Gregory I gave
to Augustine for organising the church were in line with his experience in
Italy, the fact was that those structures had to accommodate the political
realities that existed in England.[20]
Thus: “Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were the first parishes, each under the care of a
bishop.”[21] It is from this state of affairs that we find
the anachronistic modern contention that the diocese is the parish or that the
diocese is the key unit of church life.[22] By the end of the seventh century,
Christianity was the dominant religion in
In the period
that followed, dioceses were subdivided as certain kingdoms grew and were then
subdivided for administrative purposes.
The word minster is usually employed to describe all these major church foundations. This Anglo-Saxon word is derived from the Latin monasterium which also naturally gave rise to the later English term ‘monastery’. However one needs to be very cautious in using any of these terms. It is all too easy to read particular anachronistic ideas and concepts of organisation into the use of them. For example the word ‘monastery’ in modern usage has acquired the connotation of contemplative regularity and of Benedictinism, yet this (of course) is thoroughly inappropriate for the Anglo-Saxon period.[25] It is preferable to note Alan Thacker’s comment that monasterium and the English ‘minster’ embraced communities of very different size, and status, and ways of life.[26] Pounds is also alert to this and quotes Christopher Brooke’s warning that ‘minster’ is a concept of marvellous ambiguity.[27] Pounds therefore properly concludes that “The Anglo-Saxon minster was essentially a centre for missionary activity.”[28] This reminds us that the primary purpose of these major churches was Christian mission and its consolidation through pastoral care, while indicating that the way in which this was done was enormously varied.
The relevance of
this overview for a study of the parish system is that the minster’s field of
activity would be called its parochia,
the Latin term normally translated parish. However at this stage it must be
stressed that parochia was a term
which was linked to the activity of Christian ministry. Although it inevitably
had some territorial connotations that came from the travelling distance which
was reasonably possible from the minster, it certainly did not have the rigid
boundaries that we tend to associate with the word today. One can therefore
readily see the attraction that the historical reality of the minster model of
ministry holds for many in the Church of England today, since it stresses
outreach through ministerial teams in a variety of forms. Such a manner of
operation provides a vision for an alternative to the parish system in reaching
The prevalence of minsters with their accompanying parochiae in circumscribing Christian pastoral activity in Anglo-Saxon England has led to the ‘minster hypothesis’ as a way of describing how pastoral care developed in the centuries that followed the foundation of these churches. The suggestion of how the so-called ‘minster system’ developed into the parish system as it is found in the twelfth century is stated in this way by Jones: “The ‘minster hypothesis’ sees a comprehensive network of minsters in control of other churches in their territories, to which slowly and reluctantly over the next several centuries they gave up parochial authority and sources of income. Parishes therefore evolved from the break-up and decay of minster territories.”[31]
In the minster hypothesis the pattern of pastoral care provided through the minster churches began to change as lay landholders established private churches.[32] This development did not take place through the initiative of ecclesiastical authority, it simply reflected social changes that were taking place.[33] Pounds, along with others, sees the break up of the royal estate as being at the heart of this transition. The land became broken up into smaller units (ultimately manors) as local lords (thegns) acquired titles to the land later in the Anglo-Saxon period.[34] These thegns then took the initiative in founding churches on their estates. They were keen to do this because the tithe payments due to each church began to be enforced by royal authority. Jones places this development in the middle of the tenth century.[35] There were therefore economic benefits in being in possession of a church,[36] and this is why Spencer goes so far as to say that the royal enforcement of the tithe ensured the development of the parochial system.[37] Pounds also sees the transition from earlier Anglo-Saxon patterns of scattered settlement towards predominately nucleated villages as an important factor in breaking up the earlier parochiae of the minster churches. However he notes that this change in settlement patterns may itself have been a consequence of the disintegration of the royal domain.[38] In sum, the minster hypothesis sees the parish system as developing in tandem with the social changes that produced the feudal system which was in place by the late eleventh century.
Yet we must be very careful of seeing uniformity where there was in fact great diversity. Pounds warns that the word ‘system’ is a misnomer and stresses that the reality was complex and varied.[39] Jones goes still further. She warns that the dominance of the parish in record keeping since the middle of the sixteenth century[40] obscures the more ancient patchwork of townships which lay behind the formation of parishes. She therefore argues that it is a mistake to identify parishes too closely with medieval manors. Jones stresses that townships were a territorial division of the resources of the countryside, evident in the fact that place names survived even when there were no inhabitants in the land unit. The Latin word for township was villa which was then anglicised as ‘vill’. This, however, was an administrative unit and by the tenth century it was assumed that every person belonged to a vill. The Domesday book was based on these vills and it was the vill that was the main administrative unit for centuries.[41] Jones warns us therefore that “parish boundaries reflected many stages in the development of English society.”[42]
Jones
acknowledges that while township and parish coincided in much of the south and
in fertile areas of the north,[43]
the patterns were very different elsewhere. It is this diversity which must
make us cautious when speaking of the minster system or the minster hypothesis.
Jones argues strongly that various different patterns and processes lie behind
the development of parishes. This variety reflects the complex development of
society in
Jones identifies
the classic minster pattern as one in which the community sent out priests to
serve chapels in the villages and hamlets in its area,[44]
yet she illustrates this with the rather exceptional example of
Jones describes
another pattern in which the minster appointed clergy to live locally and serve
chapels. These chapels could have readily become independent as time proceeded
such that there is no need to invoke the establishment of private chapels to
account for the pattern of the later parish system. Jones calls this the Gallic
pattern because this practice may have been brought to south-east
In the Gilsland
area of Cumbria Jones identifies what she terms an ‘Irish’ pattern of pastoral
care in which there were numerous, independent, smaller churches. Gilsland was
predominantly Celtic for centuries and did not become English until 1158. It
had a monastery in Bewcastle but that community did not appear to have any
authority over the other churches. This pattern of pastoral care is called
‘Irish’ because in Celtic Ireland the church appears to have been organised in
a very different way. In the seventh and eighth centuries the Celtic church in
The point that stands out from this survey of the evidence during this period is simply the sheer variety in the organisation of pastoral care and mission that it expresses. It is not possible to account for the evidence by postulating tidy systems, even of minsters, before the twelfth century. One suspects that the desire to find such tidy systems is in itself the expression of a conviction that organisation rather than the calibre of spiritual leadership is more important in the delivery of effective pastoral care. The untidy surprises that Anglo-Saxon Christianity always springs upon us are particularly evident in the list of Irish bishops whom Jones notes were founding churches and operating in south-east England alongside the bishops of the mission stemming from Gregory I.[49] Such an overlap of mission activity is disturbing to those who expect clear geographical boundaries to be essential for effective Christian ministry. This period before the twelfth century is therefore well summed up by John Blair and Richard Sharpe:
“Much of this book emphasizes the secular context of pastoral organization: monasteria were founded by rulers, they often adjoined (and sometimes served as) centres of royal power, and their areas of responsibility were defined according to tribal, political or economic territories. One reason why the early insular church eludes the canon lawyer’s definitions is that it was articulated to the diverse forms of early insular lay society, and changed with them.”[50]
Pastoral care and mission from the twelfth century onwards
Although the ‘cold hand of canon law’ froze
the pattern of parishes from the twelfth century onwards[51]
it must not be assumed that the financial circumstances that led to this state
of affairs produced a uniform pattern of pastoral care all over England from
this time on. Parochial boundaries were certainly fixed at this time because of
the inherent territoriality associated with the payment of the tithe, but that
does not mean that each of the parishes thus delineated operated in a similar
way. As this section shows, parishes have varied considerably in the way they
worked and in the area they covered. What a parish meant and what it did could
vary considerably within
After the twelfth century parochial status was as carefully guarded as parish boundaries. Until 1843 it was impossible to create a new parish except by Act of Parliament.[53] Parochial status generally involved having a font and a graveyard.[54] This gives a clue as to why such status was so zealously protected. Once again it was money that was intimately linked with being a parish. The fees gained from such ministry would not be lightly given away to another church since that would threaten the very existence of the original church.
In order to modify the rigidities of the parochial system that these financial concerns engendered, many chapels were founded during the medieval period.[55] The word ‘chapel’ is nowadays associated with nonconformity following its appropriation for this purpose from the seventeenth century onwards, but in origin the word was Frankish and gained currency through William the Conquerors laws as being a term for a church that had no graveyard. In Anglo-Saxon times this would have been called a ‘field church’.[56] However although some chapels do have their origins in adjustments to pre-Conquest patterns of pastoral care, the majority of chapels were indeed founded in the later-medieval period to relieve stresses created by the rigidities of the parish system.
Chapels created in the medieval period were often chapels of ease. These were generally established to provide for communities who lived some distance from the parish church or for areas in which the population had greatly expanded.[57] However there were also private chapels, oratories and chantries. Private chapels were not open to the public and could serve the residence of a wealthy family or an institution such as a gild or hospital. They were a means by which social differentiation and alternative human networks found spiritual expression. Although chantries were founded for the unbiblical purpose of saying masses for the dead they could also have other secondary functions. They might be the focus of a gild and thus have a social role. A chantry endowment might be a way in which the services of a parish could be extended.[58] They might, for example, be a means of making more priests available to serve in a parish. Chantries were often simply associated with an altar or chapel within the parish church itself, but in a good number of cases they were actually independent church buildings. Because of this, a more accessible ministry might develop from them to the people in the surrounding area.
We
might be inclined to think that chapels were nonetheless a relatively minor
feature of parish life and the parish system during this period. This is not
true, however. Spencer goes so far as to say that there may have been more
non-parochial than parochial churches in medieval
The
north is the other region where chapels were particularly important. Northern
parishes were notably larger than their southern counterparts. This is often
because moorland and other barren areas were incorporated within their bounds.
However the greater size of these northern parishes led to a very different
system of operation in which chapels paid a large part. In
One might wonder whether the upheaval of the Reformation would have altered the parish system. The suppression of the chantries certainly gave an opportunity to redirect confiscated resources. However it seems that in the south many chapels simply disappeared, whereas in the north local inhabitants set about maintaining their much needed chapels themselves. An opportunity to alter the parochial structure was therefore missed as the church “stuck grimly to its obsolescent boundaries”.[64] The growth of towns and the founding of new towns after the twelfth century also provided an occasion for addressing the rigidity of the parochial system. Again it was not taken. The creation of a new parish required great influence with church authorities, so in most cases new towns were only supplied by chapels of ease.[65] Of course some town-dwellers could also avail themselves of the non-parochial services offered by chapels and the other institutions mentioned above. In the nineteenth century the problem of urban population growth reached crisis proportions for the parish system but the Church of England’s response to this will be considered in Chapter 3.
One
more feature of the parish system which tended to reinforce its rigidity and
its all consuming importance is the way in which it accumulated what we today
would call civil administrative functions. We have already seen that
alternative units of social organisation such as the manor or vill (township)
existed at an early date. However as the medieval period progressed it was the
parish that became the focus of civil government. This can be illustrated
through the development of the office of churchwarden. Wardens first appear as
elected representatives of parishioners during the thirteenth century.[66]
More and more tasks were placed upon their shoulders, to the extent that by the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries further parish officials such as the
constable, overseer and surveyor had to be created and the wardens then tended
to revert to their original responsibilities for the church.[67]
This process demonstrates the way in which from the sixteenth century onwards
the parish was the key unit of civil administration. From then until the
nineteenth century the parish was all important, not just in the ecclesiastical
domain but also in the social sphere. Indeed during the great period of reform
in the 1830s it was the dominance of the parish in local government that left
the Church of England dangerously exposed to the consequences of social unrest.[68] However
the reality today is that in most areas of
Conclusions
This brief survey of the provision of pastoral care and the practice of mission in past centuries leads us to note a number of aspects of the parish system.
(i) If the parish system is envisaged in terms of clearly defined geographical boundaries then the original reason for those boundaries has disappeared. The boundaries and parochial status of a church were of vital importance when the financial support of parish churches depended upon them, and we have seen that the unfortunate rigidity of the parochial system stemmed from this financial linkage. Nowadays however this link no longer exists and the necessity for such rigid boundaries and status is not there. The ancient system of tithes was dismantled in the nineteenth century and all remaining tithes were abolished in 1936. More recently, fees from weddings and funerals have become only a minor factor in the income and support of most churches. The Church of England as a whole does not rely upon fee income to support its pastoral care and outreach. It now relies largely upon the committed giving of current congregations.[69]
(ii) If the parish system is conceived in a more general way as a means of providing pastoral care and bringing the gospel to all then we must note how varied that provision has been in the past. The system as presently constituted is not the only way of practising Christian ministry. The most characteristic feature of the period before the twelfth century was that there was no clear system at all (though that does not mean that pastoral care and outreach was haphazard and disorganised). During that period such flexibility in organisation maintained a close link between the way society was organised and the way in which Christian mission was practised. From the twelfth century onwards we see that the rigidity of the parish system meant that chapels had to be founded in order to mitigate that rigidity. The danger signs for the church have been plain at various points since the twelfth century, but they were not heeded. A stress on organisation rather than sound teaching as being the key to Christian mission and ministry has created a gathering storm which is now battering the Church of England. It is this gathering storm which we examine in the next chapter.
Return to Contents
The Gathering Storm:
The Growing Inadequacies of the Parish System
Today when we look at the results of the 1851 Religious Census we are impressed by the overall numbers for church attendance as well as the particular figures for the Church of England.[70] It is a measure of how little we appreciate the immensity of the current mission task that we find it hard to comprehend the shock and gloom that this Census created at the time. It was perhaps confirming what many had suspected to be the real state of affairs, but it was a shock nonetheless. It revealed that there were vast numbers of people who were unreached and that nonconformity had grown enormously.[71] It is said that this Census has led to “an interpretative tradition concentrating on the scale of absenteeism” which only now is being reassessed and reversed to underline the achievements of Victorian religious energies.[72] However this reassessment cannot ignore the reality that at the time the figures were seen as clear evidence of failure of mission. Such a modern reinterpretation really only serves to underline the change in climate in the intervening 150 years.
The rigidity of the parish system is not the only reason for the failings revealed in 1851 but it was a significant factor. The inflexibility of the parish system and its financial basis led to both structural and theological strains upon the mission work of the Church of England. This chapter examines how both these elements contributed to the gathering storm which now threatens the entire institution with collapse.[73] Once again we observe a variety of attempts to do effective Christian mission within a conservative atmosphere which was deeply reluctant to change inherited systems of organisation.
It is commonly recognised that the pressures of population increase and industrialisation, along with the development of faster means of transport, placed significant strains on the parish system during the nineteenth century. However there is little recognition that theological diversity also played an increasing part in the growing ineffectiveness of the parish system. That is why both the structural (or social) and theological strains on the system need to be studied. Indeed they relate to one another. For example Nigel Scotland quotes Alan Gilbert as saying that the period from 1740-1830 was a disaster for the Church of England.[74] The implication appears to be that the structural strains on the system were then recognised and addressed in the period that followed. However a number of people are now recognising that the response to the deficiencies at that time was the wrong one.[75] There was a focus on buildings and church accommodation rather than actual ministry which arguably arose from an erroneous theological perception about the nature of Christian mission and ministry which was gaining ground at the time.
In this chapter we will first consider the period before c. 1800 in order to show that both social and theological strains were already being felt within the parish system. We will then move on to the period after 1800 in which both industrialisation and theological turmoil made some sort of response to the system’s inadequacies imperative. We will then look at the response that was made and assess its effectiveness.
Social and theological strains prior to 1800
The growth of towns after the fixing of the parochial system in the twelfth century provided the first strains upon it. We have already seen that provision was not easy to make (see above pp 21-22), especially in the case of towns that were entirely new.[76] There are hints even during the medieval period that social strains were not the only source of stress, but that theological differences could have provided a reason for the foundation of some chapels.[77]
However
it is probably the Puritan lectureship system which demonstrates the first
significant attempt to tackle inadequacies in the parochial system. Beginning
in the reign of Elizabeth I, a significant movement within the Church of
England developed which sought to improve the effectiveness of the ministry
practised within the country’s parishes. Although some sought organisational
change, the greater priority was always the provision of effective preachers.[78]
Amongst the Puritans there was a recognition that the parochial system was
failing to provide good preaching for the population. It was to deal with this
deficiency that lectureships were started. Their intention was to supplement
the deficiencies of the parochial system, whether those deficiencies arose from
the failure of the system to cope with increasing population in towns, or
whether those deficiencies arose from the inadequate ministry of those clergy
established within the parochial system. Lectureships were often set up and
paid for by the local authority.[79]
One of the earliest lectureships was that of St Antholin’s in
It is notable that there were projects to reform the parish system to make it more pastorally effective occurred when Puritans gained political power during the Commonwealth. However we must note that the focus was not on parochial organisation as such but rather on the provision of learned and preaching ministers.[82] The plans to redistribute tithe income in order to achieve this end generated an opportunity to redraw parish boundaries. A survey was made for this purpose in 1649 and it is notable that it was organised by county rather than by diocese.[83] In northern counties recommendations were made to break up large parishes through making subordinate chapels parishes in their own right. However these plans to augment poor livings and reorganise medieval parish structures were abandoned after the Restoration in 1660.
This was of course a significant moment in the story of the parochial system. The failure to accommodate Puritan clergy and Puritan plans for reform following the 1662 Act of Uniformity meant that new forms of pastoral provision emerged through nonconformity. Indeed this sowed the seeds for the further undermining of the basis of the parochial system. The tithe had first been questioned in print in 1618,[84] but it was after 1650 that Quakers and others began to object to paying the tithe which was going to support a ministry that they did not want.[85]
If the parochial system itself could not be easily reformed under the pressure of social and theological strains, then the financial arrangements that underlay it could at least be modified to alleviate some of its effects. This was the purpose behind the establishment of Queen Anne’s Bounty. In 1704 Parliament recognised the need for a scheme to help poorer clergy, possibly in part due to nonconformists’ principled opposition to tithe.[86] Surveys were made to establish which livings were poor and the first augmentations were made under the scheme in 1714.[87]
A further significant development in the eighteenth century was the rise of Methodism. Today many find it strange that John Wesley and others met such bitter opposition to preaching in the parishes of others. In fact Wesley was encouraged to minister in this way through the influence of George Whitefield. They were moved to do so by the evident pastoral inadequacies that they encountered. It is the financial basis of the parochial system which provides an explanation for some of the hostility that they met. The rules they broke had been designed to protect that system and its financial underpinnings. It was not for nothing that Wesley is associated with the idea that the world was his parish. Although Wesley loved the Church of England and was initially tenacious about every point of decency and order, his heart for the gospel led him to that broader work.[88]
Social and theological strains from 1800 onwards
It is widely acknowledged that the massive
growth in urban population produced intolerable social strains upon the parish
system after 1800. In the early 1820s
However the rigidities of the parish system
had already led evangelicals to start taking initiatives in bringing the gospel
to the nation. The movement to establish proprietary chapels in order to
address the inadequacies of the parochial system began in the late eighteenth
century.[91]
This movement is sometimes represented as primarily an attempt to create more
pastoral provision for the growing numbers of people in towns and cities.[92]
However the reality is far more complex. Certainly the glaring deficiency in
pastoral provision provided opportunities for private initiative to be taken.
It must be stressed that – like the private, proprietary churches that were
being founded at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period (see above p 13) – these
proprietary chapels were funded at private expense. They were not dependent in
any way upon tithes or other historic endowments, most of their annual funding
coming from pew rents. Although some seek to dismiss those who founded these
chapels as motivated purely by financial gain, suggesting that the appointment
of a popular preacher could provide a handsome income to the proprietor, the
evidence is rather that other motives predominated. Usually the desire was
simply to increase evangelical preaching ministry, as with the earlier Puritan
lectureships.[93]
They did indeed provide the basis for well known ministries such as Richard
Cecil and Daniel Wilson at
Once
more, we see that it was theological strains (in this case the hostility that
many evangelicals met in exercising their ministry) as well as social ones
which led to this initiative designed to circumvent the rigidities of the
parochial system. By 1824 there may have been as many as 59 proprietary chapels
in
Proprietary
chapels were one initiative which arose because of the social and theological
strains affecting the parochial system. However the degree of strain meant that
the challenge needed to be addressed in a far more comprehensive manner. After
the decisive defeat of Napoleon at