'Save our Parsonages'?
The article entitled 'Save our Parsonages', setting out the objective of a group of that name to discourage the Church from disposing of old rectories and vicarages, overlooks the factors which often militate against the retention of such buildings for their original purpose (K.A.S. Newsletter, No. 33, Winter 1995). The following is an attempt to rectify that oversight.
First, however, it is necessary to explain why the term 'parsonage' in this sense is best avoided in a historical context. Although in modern usage it is acceptable to refer to the residence of a Church of England incumbent, whether rector or vicar, as a parsonage, originally it was the term used for the possession of full temporal rights of a parish priest. Thus a parson would be a rector, not a vicar. Yet a parsonage was not necessarily the residence or entitlement of a clergyman; it could be the establishment where the temporalities were managed when the rectorial rights were acquired by a layman. An example is evident in Kent at West Malling where today there is an Old Vicarage, now a private house, and an Old Parsonage, now sheltered accommodation for the elderly.
Until the dissolution of the monasteries, the manor of West Malling was held by the abbess and nuns of Malling Abbey. Then, after a short period in the possession of Archbishop Cranmer, the manor passed into lay hands. Eventually it was acquired by the Twisden family. Writing circa 1770, the historian Hasted stated specifically that 'Sir Papillon Twisden, bart., is the present possessor of the parsonage, and the advowson of the vicarage of West or Town Malling.'
To understand why so many rectories and vicarages surviving from the past are no longer suitable homes for parish incumbents, we should look briefly at parochial history. As Professor McKisack has pointed out, the medieval parish priest 'might well be a manumitted serf, tilling the glebe with his own hands and distinguished from the peasantry around him only by his superior education.' The priest's house would then have been a humble dwelling. When the Church became regarded as a suitable vocation for the younger sons of the nobility and gentry, and domestic service was cheap and readily available, incumbents with such origins could afford to live in a style approaching that to which they had been accustomed in their parental homes. The rectories and vicarages left by them are often far too large for modern incumbents.
The 'Save our Parsonages' article claims that in practice the rectory or vicarage is 'almost always a focal point of parish life, with a greater part of the church ministry taking place there than in the church itself.' It also claims that 'in many cases it is used for larger gatherings such as garden fetes, money-raising events and youth clubs' and that the 'spacious rooms of older parsonages are ideal for parish activities.' It is evident that they often 'lend themselves to judicious division into a home for the priest and self-contained accommodation for parish activities or for letting.' These suggestions overlook that clergy are often family men, sometimes with young children. Their residences are primarily family homes, with only the incumbent's study, readily accessible for visits and large enough for parish committee meetings, as a special facility. A family should not be subjected to disturbance by the events proposed, usually held in the evenings. Moreover, large though many of the older rectories and vicarages may be, very few have rooms spacious enough for such parish activities. In any case, today these activities are usually provided for by a parish centre or village hall. As for sub-letting parts of these older buildings, one may wonder how many clergymen would welcome such an expedient. Garden parties (or fetes) are a different matter.
Often they are, or were, family occasions, and perhaps new rectories and vicarages could, when possible, have gardens large enough for them. Yet this again raises the question of cost in time or hired assistance.
In advocating the retention of old rectories and vicarages by the Church, little if any consideration appears to be given to the question whether the majority, or even a significant minority, of clergymen would prefer to live in an old house, too large to be run without domestic help, rather than one designed for a modern family, and with the facilities normally required by a parish priest.
Whereas until the early days of the present century each parish had its own minister, often assisted by a curate, it is now quite common for one clergyman to be responsible for a 'united benefice' consisting of several parishes. Some instances in Kent are:
Birling with Addington,
Ryarsh and Trottiscliffe;
Eynesford with Farningham and Lullingstone; Hollingbourne and Hucking with Leeds and Broomfield.
Even if none of these parishes had an old vicarage or old rectory, there would still be more pastoral homes than incumbents.
Finally, when former rectories, vicarages or parsonages of historic interest or architectural value become private property, there need be no fear about their continued proper treatment and preservation. They are protected by the local authority under central government legislation, and in Kent the K.A.S. Historic Buildings Committee acts as watch-dog.
Acknowledgements: I wish to thank all those good friends and helpful officials who provided me with local material.
C. L. Sinclair Williams