Navigation – Plan du site
Articles

The Corporatisation of Global Anglicanism

Architecture, Organisation, and Faith-based Patronage in the Nineteenth-Century British Colonial World
G. A. Bremner

Résumés

Cet article étudie la structure entrepreneuriale de l’anglicanisme missionnaire et ses répercussions architecturales dans l’Empire britannique au XIXe siècle. Le texte part de la supposition que, en soulignant le rôle des organisations ecclésiastiques intégrées dans l’Église anglaise, parmi lesquelles la Société pour la diffusion de l’Évangile dans les territoires étrangers (Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts) et le Fonds des évéchés coloniaux (Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund), l’on comprend mieux l’articulation entre les objectifs de ces organisations et leurs opérations « sur site », ainsi que l’influence de leur programme sur la forme de l’architecture ecclésiastique. L’hypothèse générale est que l’influence et l’autorité de ces organisations de par leur position de commanditaire sont à l’origine de la forme caractéristique d’une grande partie des opérations des missions anglicanes de cette époque ayant produit une forme d’architecture qui traduit à de nombreux égards les idéaux et la pratique de l’Église anglaise en tant qu’entité « constituée légalement en entreprise ». Cette architecture peut donc être lue à la fois comme incarnation et représentation d’une certaine identité d’entreprise.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1When we think of Christian missionaries today, the image that most commonly springs to mind—especially with respect to the 19th century—is that of a rather youthful man, set against the adversities of nature and “heathenism”, usually in some remote “uncivilised” land, and inspired by a dutiful sense of courage and self-sacrifice. At least as far as Britain is concerned, this was the caricature of the Victorian missionary “hero”—toiling against all odds, to the death if necessary. It was a popular and enduring image. Of course, it was one that was partly manufactured for “home” consumption, intended to prick the conscience of the church-going public and to encourage them to donate further resources to the cause, whether in terms of manpower or money. By the late 19th century this image had not only become a stereotype in Britain but something of an archetype, too.

  • 1 G. A. Bremner, “The Architecture of the Universities’ Mission to Central Africa: Developing a Verna (...)

2The incessant focus on the individual, or on small groups of individuals, that accompanied this caricature was also misleading in the sense that it not so much ignored the larger organisational structures that lay behind missionary enterprises as it pushed them into the background. After all, it was the feats of the individual that were calculated to inspire sympathy and capture public attention. Here one thinks of the great missionary protagonist and explorer David Livingstone, who, after his triumphant return to Britain in 1857 from his sojourn in Central Africa, became the “model” of manly Christian venture, inspiring new missions and “martyrs” in his wake.1

  • 2 On Livingstone’s connection with the Lms, see discussions of his early life in William G. Blaikie, (...)

3But it was the rather less inspiring, even mundane machinery associated with missionary organisations that made possible and often facilitated such activity in the first place. In the case of Livingstone it was the resources of the London Missionary Society (Lms) that assisted in both his medical education and in placing him in Africa (he originally wanted to go to China), and without which his celebrated deeds may not have had quite the same sanctimonious, even mythical lustre they came to acquire.2 It has to be remembered that organisations like the Lms, of which there were a number in Britain, were responsible for the tireless and unenviable task of gathering and coordinating huge resources, largely on a voluntary basis. These organisations were, in their own way, forerunners to what today we might refer to as the international Ngo, in some cases basing and managing activity right across the globe.

4In the Anglican confession, apart from the Church of England itself—an established church by law—there was the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (Spg [1699]), the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (Spck [1701]), and the Church Missionary Society (Cms [1799]). Each of these organisations saw themselves principally or in part as organs for the promulgation of Anglicanism beyond the British Isles, especially the Spg, and mainly within the confines of the British empire, although sometimes beyond it too.

  • 3 This is what John Venn, member of the Clapham Sect and leading founder of the Cms, described as the (...)
  • 4 Appendix to Spg Report of 1706 quoted in Henry P. Thompson, Into All Lands: The History of the Soci (...)
  • 5 In time the selection of Spg missionaries became highly regulated, requiring each applicant to be a (...)
  • 6 Andrew Porter, Religion versus Empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700 (...)
  • 7 In this respect he also perceived it as the Church’s “right arm”. Samuel Wilberforce, “Upon Our Dut (...)

5The Spg and the Cms in particular had become quite active in the sphere of foreign missions by the mid-19th century. Although both nominally Anglican, the Cms was more independent than the Spg, maintaining a looser, less disciplined organisational structure.3 For this reason the Cms, which trained and sent its own missionaries abroad, was less reliant on episcopal oversight (often opposed to it) and was even given to co-opting other Protestant clergymen into its ranks, including German Lutherans. The Spg, on the other hand, although “voluntary” as well, was imagined from the beginning as a kind of administrative department (or extension) of the established Church of England, insisting that its personnel conform “to the Doctrine and Discipline” of that Church.4 In effect this meant having its recruits adhere to the Thirty-Nine Articles of faith, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and be subject to episcopal authority.5 Indeed, the Society demanded that every bible it distributed be bound up with a copy of the Book of Common Prayer.6 Owing to this mentality, the Spg became increasingly identified with orthodox Anglicanism in the colonies—hence, why bishop Samuel Wilberforce referred to it in 1840 as nothing less than the official “missionary arm” of the English Church.7

  • 8 G. A. Bremner, Imperial Gothic: Religious Architecture and High Anglican Culture in the British Emp (...)

6In my recent book Imperial Gothic I discussed at length the subject of global Anglicanism, including the role played by the Spg.8 Here, in this article, I wish to pick up some of the threads of that discussion, considering further the status, corporate structure, and patronage of the Spg as an “official” Church of England association, including its connection to the Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund, which was established in 1841. I will argue that these organisations, although voluntary, were effectively incorporated as part of the constitutional “system” of the English Church in its efforts to extend Anglicanism throughout Britain’s worldwide territorial empire during the 19th century. Even where this constitutional structure was found to have no real legal basis in the colonies, especially following ecclesiastical reform and retrenchment during the 1820s and 1830s, it was still imagined as such.

7Understanding the Spg as a kind of corporate subsidiary of the English Church in this way will be used as a means of demonstrating that a great deal of Anglican ecclesiastical architecture in Britain’s empire, particularly during the middle decades of the 19th century, was affected by the fiscal, theological, and intellectual interventions of the Spg in its capacity as an agent for upholding and promulgating the interests of the established Church of England. Other Anglican affiliated organisations will also be discussed for the influence they exerted over the direction taken by ecclesiastical architecture in the colonies during this period, especially the Oxford Architectural and Cambridge Camden societies. Combined, these connections will be seen to amount to a form of corporatisation.

Corporate Identities: the Incorporation of Colonial and Missionary Anglicanism

  • 9 Henry P. Thompson, op. cit. (note 4), p. 17.
  • 10 Ibid., p. 16.

8The metaphor used by Wilberforce to describe the relationship between the Spg and the established Church of England refers to another, quite fundamental aspect of the Spg’s constitution—the fact that it was indeed a “body” of sorts. This points specifically to the organisation’s foundation and status within the broader political constitution of the English Church. Born out of the Spck, the Spg looked to consolidate further the perceived “duty” of extending state-sponsored religion to Britain’s colonial empire. As H. P. Thompson has observed, “in contrast with its parent the Spck, a voluntary association with few formalities, the new Society [Spg], matre pulchra filia pulchrior, was constituted on more precise and official lines.”9 Thus, its promoters—among whom included Dr Thomas Bray, prime mover behind the Spck—had sought official patronage from the outset in the form of a Royal Charter. This initially appeared as a draught document appealing “for the erecting a Corporation for Propagating the Gospell [sic] in Foreign Parts”. After amendment, and with the backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Spg was duly issued its Charter by parliament on 16 June 1701.10 Its remit was clear, and in case anyone doubted the greater need, the Charter stipulated in explicit terms:

  • 11 The SPG’s Royal Charter quoted in ibid., p. 17.

… Whereas Wee are credibly informed that in many of our Plantacons, Colonies, and Factories beyond the Seas, belonging to Our Kingdome of England, the Provision for Ministers is very mean. And many others of Our said Plantacons, Colonies and Factories are wholy destitute, and unprovided of a Mainteynance for Ministers, and the Publick Worshipp of God; and for lack of Support and Mainteynance for such, many of our Loving Subjects doe want the Administration of God’s Word and Sacraments, and seem to be abandoned to Atheism and Infidelity and alsoe for Want of Learned and Orthodox Ministers to instruct Our said Loving Subjects in the Principles of true religion, divers Romish Priests and Jesuits are the more incouraged to pervert and draw over Our said Loving Subjects to Popish Superstition and Idolatry.11

  • 12 Daniel O’Connor et al., Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the G (...)

9Again, it was precisely this type of language, politically charged as it was, that associated the Spg with orthodoxy and the State. It was, as Daniel O’Connor has noted, the only means by which a church of the ancien régime had of responding to new needs, for when the Church of England was initially established in the sixteenth century the legal machinery for its extension beyond England did not exist.12 The Charter thus gave the Society authority “for ever” to gather funds in aid of promoting its cause, and was supported to this effect by an “annual letter” from the reigning monarch.

  • 13 The SPG’s Royal Charter quoted in Henry P. Thompson, op. cit. (note 4), p. 18.
  • 14 Andrew Porter, op. cit. (note 6), p. 16–28.
  • 15 For the State-related ’imperial’ imperative of the SPG, especially in its early days, see Rowan Str (...)

10Importantly, and to return to the metaphor of the “body”, the Royal Charter stipulated that the Spg’s members be constituted as “one Body Politick and Corporate, in Deed and in Name”.13 What this meant, legally speaking, was that the Spg was a corporation. It also meant, in effect, that it was incorporated as a part of the Church of England, thus becoming an “arm”, as Wilberforce would have it, of the larger “Body Politick” of the Church as a nationally constituted organ.This gave it license to promulgate Anglicanism wherever British sovereignty prevailed. Whether it did this effectively or not is another question, and there has been some scholarly debate around whether the Society was as conscientious as it might have been in “propagating” Anglicanism, especially to indigenous peoples.14 Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the Spg viewed itself from the very beginning as a State authorised corporationwith an “imperial” mandate.15

  • 16 Hilary M. Carey, God’s Empire: Religion and Colonialism in the British World, c.1801-1908, op. cit. (...)

11Despite this authority, the vigour and fortunes of the Spg ebbed and flowed during the late eighteenth and early 19th centuries. But so closely associated with the affairs of State had the organisation become that between the years 1814 and 1834 it received grants directly from the British Crown totalling some £241,850, mainly for clergy salaries in Upper Canada, which were partly in aid of entrenching loyalist sympathies in British North America following the American Revolution.16 Even after this grant was abolished, and the Society became somewhat abstracted from State connexion (practically and ideologically), it still maintained a reputation as the agent of orthodox Anglicanism both in the colonies and the wider mission field.

  • 17 For a very helpful account of the constitutional and legal situation of the Church of England in th (...)
  • 18 Even so, the Spg’s average annual income between the years 1836 and 1851 was £60,726. See Origins a (...)

12Nevertheless, after the Spg’s parliamentary grant was removed in 1834, it could no longer assume that it held any kind of privileged status vis-à-vis religion and the State in Britain’s colonial empire, despite its history and despite how it viewed it sown importance as an organ for the promulgation of the “true” faith. The reality was that the colonial sphere was fast becoming a pluralistic domain in which Anglicanism was but one among many officially-recognised Christian denominations.17 The 'Protestant Constitution' was unravelling in reformist Britain, and the Spg was a casualty of the government’s zeal for retrenchment.18

  • 19 For instance, home parish support for the SPG increased dramatically during the middle decades of t (...)
  • 20 For a brief history of the Cbf, see Walter F. France, The Oversea Episcopate: Centenary History of (...)
  • 21 See “The Colonial Bishoprics Act 1841,” in Roy P. Flindall (ed.), The Church of England 1815-1948: (...)

13But not all was lost. The agenda of the Spg was swept up in and reinvigorated, nay transformed, by the general tenor of Anglican renewal following the resurgence of spirituality and identity within the English Church during the 1830s, including its perceived responsibilities with regard to the wider British empire.19 This included association with the foundation of the Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund (Cbf) in 1841 which, again, although a voluntary initiative, was backed and patronised by both the clerical elite within the Church of England and leading lay figures such as W. E. Gladstone, the Earl of Chichester, Lord John Manners, the Duke of Newcastle, John Taylor Coleridge, and G. W. Lyttelton.20 Moreover, the Fund, to which the Spg supplied at least £5000 in the first instance, was given official parliamentary support in aid of its objectives through the passing of the Colonial Bishoprics Act (5 Vict., c. 6) the same year, giving the Church hierarchy licence to appoint colonial bishops in the name of the Crown.21

  • 22 Daniel O’Connor et al., Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the G (...)

14The Spg was wedded to this initiative and would in time become largely responsible for its management. Indeed, not only did the Spg supply around a quarter of the Fund’s total income for the remainder of the 19th century, but, between its inauguration and the mid-1860s, the Secretary of both the Cbf and the Spg was the same person, the Rev. Ernest Hawkins.22

Corporation Manifest: Architecture as Confessional Figure

  • 23 Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society, op. cit. (note 3), p. 65.

15By the middle of the 19th century, the Church of England therefore had at least two major, 'incorporated' mechanisms through which to extend Anglicanism throughout the British empire and to carry out missionary work on a confessional basis. Although, by this time, as Eugene Stock has noted, it would be “extremest [sic] Erastianism” to claim any strict constitutional basis for these mechanisms beyond the British Isles, they were nonetheless firmly associated with the Church of England, had a certain basis in law in the United Kingdom, and, for lack of a better term, represented two aspects of a single corporate identity.23 In other words, despite the uncertain and changing legal status of the English Church in the colonies, its recognition and support of Anglian church extension through organisations such as the Spg and Cbf amounted to what can only be described as a form of corporate patronage.

16This is important because patronage of this kind had significant consequences for architecture in the colonies. Many of the new breed of colonial bishops appointed under the Cbf scheme, as well as a sizable number of colonial clergymen affiliated with the Spg, had been affected appreciably by the Oxford Movement while studying at university—either at Oxford or Cambridge, where most Anglican clerics received their education. The High Church and Tractarian sentiments inculcated among these men while at university also led many to take a keen interest in church architecture and liturgical reform. Indeed, following the advent of the Oxford Movement, dedicated architectural societies in both Oxford and Cambridge were formed. The Cambridge Camden Society (Ccs), in particular, became a very influential forum for promoting 'correct' church architecture based on the spirit of Anglican renewal, not just in Britain but across the British colonial world.

  • 24 S. L. Ollard, “The Oxford Architectural and Historical Society and the Oxford Movement,” Oxoniensia(...)

17In fact, the Ccs, founded in 1839, saw a distinct part of its responsibility as being the proper arrangement of colonial church buildings, and was ever ready to provide assistance in terms of architectural advice to colonial clergymen, including sending plans abroad. Like the Spg and Cbf, the Ccs also established itself as a wholly Anglican affair. Its principal organ, The Ecclesiologist (1841–1868), quickly became an important periodical among High Church architects and clerics, affecting the work of some of Britain’s foremost young designers, including William Burges, R. C. Carpenter, G. E. Street, George Gilbert Scott, G. F. Bodley and William Butterfield. The Ccs was accompanied – indeed preceded – in its endeavours by the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture (hereafter Oxford Architectural Society), formed two months before the Ccs, in February 1839. Although not as doctrinaire as the Camdenians, the Oxford society was also heavily influenced by Tractarian theology. This influence shaped its understanding of ancient church architecture and the endorsement of it as the only proper basis for a true and worthy Christian architecture.24

  • 25 For the wider national and imperial dimensions of this debate, see G. A. Bremner, “Nation and Empir (...)

18Coinciding with all of this was the “high” or mature phase of the Gothic Revival movement in architecture in Britain. By the 1840s, Anglicans held that medieval forms of architecture – notably English Gothic – were the only legitimate source for ecclesiastical buildings. Although the range of sources for ecclesiastical design in Britain would broaden considerably during the 1850s to include models from continental Europe, especially French and Italian, the Middle Ages remained very much the belle époque in the minds of High Churchmen and their architects. This penchant for the romance and authority of the Middle Ages was coupled to ideas concerning identity and nationhood in architecture, especially as the wider debate over the choice and appropriateness of architectural style in Britain reached its climax during the late 1850s and 1860s.25

  • 26 The Ecclesiologist [hereafter Eccl.], vol. 1, no. 1, November 1841, p. 4–5. Rules and Proceedings, (...)

19It is interesting to note in this regard that the very first report that appeared in The Ecclesiologist was for the design of parish churches in New Zealand, while the Oxford Architectural Society endeavoured throughout much of the early 1840s to supply designs for the Afghan Memorial Church in Bombay and for wooden churches in Newfoundland.26 As these places were perceived to be frontier environments – zones of emigration, opportunity, social experimentation and confrontation – the need to encourage correct and proper church design was considered paramount.

  • 27 This publication was originally referred to as Instrumenta Ecclesiastica, or, A Series of Working D (...)
  • 28 G. A. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8), p. 56–68.
  • 29 George W. O. Addleshaw and Frederick Etchells, The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship, Londo (...)

20The regular correspondence kept up between these societies and colonial clergymen assisted substantially in shaping the direction of Anglican church architecture in Britain’s empire. In addition to written advice, the publication of Instrumenta Ecclesiastica by the Ccs from 1844 onwards proved a useful aid in promoting ecclesiology in the colonies. This series of publications – in effect, pattern books for the design of churches and church furnishings, based on medieval precedent – were produced primarily to 'improve' the quality of ecclesiastical design in such places.27 Alongside Instrumenta, both the Cambridge Camden (by 1845 the Ecclesiological Society) and Oxford Architectural societies also published a series of “model” church designs. These included plans, elevations and details of known exemplars of English medieval church architecture that could either be reproduced in toto or adapted for colonial purposes.28 Indeed, the influence of the Ecclesiological Society was so pervasive in this respect that by the 1860s there was almost no Anglican church anywhere in the world left unaffected by its reforming zeal.29

  • 30 A. G. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8).

21Crucial, therefore, to the triumph of the Ecclesiological and Oxford Architectural societies in raising the standard and consistency of Anglican church architecture in the colonies was a wholesale change in mentality. Importantly, this endeavour was reliant to a large extent, particularly in the 1840s and 1850s, on the complicity of Church of England clergymen, many of whom were appointed under the Cbf or affiliated with the Spg in some way. Although neither the Spg nor the Cbf had any specific policy concerning architecture, many Anglican bishops and clergymen connected with these schemes were either patrons or members, or both, of the architectural societies in Oxford and Cambridge.30 Moreover, the interests of these various organisations were allied through the presence of powerful lay members such as A. J. B. Beresford Hope, who not only sat on the board of directors of both the Spg and the Cbf, but was also chairman (1845-59) and then president (1859-68) of the Ccs.

  • 31 Eccl., new ser., vol. 1, no. 1, January 1845, p. 31.

22This is important because, outside the design of large and complex structures such as cathedrals, a high proportion of the Anglican churches erected in Britain’s colonies during the mid-19th century were designed not by architects but by clergymen. In most locations, particularly early on, and beyond the confines of major settlements, professional architectural expertise was unavailable. This left the design and construction of churches either in the hands of insensitive builders at extortionate rates or in the care of the local clergyman. Having acquired knowledge of ecclesiology while studying at university, and helped by the response to appeals home for good and inexpensive church plans and models, many clergymen were able to perform the function of architect with relative ease. And “Why not?” asked The Ecclesiologist; after all “William of Sens, and Alan of Walsingham, and William of Wykeham were priests”.31

23This degree of non-expert participation in the design and construction of churches and chapels by Church of England clergymen is one of the most remarkable aspects of the spread and consolidation of Anglican culture throughout the British empire during the Victorian period. The early pioneering days of the colonial episcopate was dependent on the dedication and piety of the new colonial bishops and their determination to organise religion upon reformed catholic and apostolic principles, including architecture. In this respect the Spg, in conjunction with the Cbf, were in effect corporate sponsors of not just a particular breed of colonial clergymen but also, and by extension, a particular brand of ecclesiastical architecture—one that both embodied and represented, as the Spg constitution would have it, the “system of our Church of England.”

Examples in Context: Utilising Patronage in the Field

24If the Church of England was to recreate its organisational structures abroad, then it was entirely reasonable to assume that the physical manifestation of its liturgical practices would follow. There are many examples in the field that one might point to in illustrating the various ways in which Spg patronage assisted and influenced church building activity. As mentioned, the Society’s largess extended right across the British empire, and no initiative was too small or remote to attract its interest. Here, however, space only allows for three cases. These are rather typical and will be drawn from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The first of these concerns bishop Broughton of Australia.

  • 32 Frederick T. Whitington, William Grant Broughton: Bishop of Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, (...)
  • 33 George P. Shaw, “Supporting a Colonial Bishop and Patriot: William Grant Broughton and the Society, (...)

25The Rev. William Grant Broughton (1788–1853), bishop of Australia, was quite an active cleric in extending and entrenching the influence of the established Churchof England in the Australian colonies, including its architecture. Broughton, who had been archdeacon of Australia from 1829, was made bishop of Australia when the diocese of Calcutta was divided in 1836. He was primarily a churchman of the “high and dry” school but later came under the spell of the Oxford Movement, inspired mainly by ideas of spiritual dignity and ecclesiastical independence.32 Although not appointed under the Cbf scheme, Broughton nevertheless developed a close working relationship with the Spg, which drew Australia into its sphere of influence in 1834.33

  • 34 Bruce N. Kaye, “Broughton and the Demise of the Royal Supremacy,” Journal of the Royal Australian H (...)

26Broughton’s relationship with the Spg was born as much of necessity as anything else, for shortly after his appointment at bishop, he found himself having to defend the very existence of the English Church in Australia. The suspension and eventual dissolution of the Church and Schools Corporation (which granted one-seventh of land in Australia to the established church) in 1833, followed by the institution of religious pluralism through the Church Act of 1836, left Broughton in little doubt of what lay in store: disestablishment and open competition for resources with other Christian denominations.34 Under these conditions the Spg proved a particularly welcome and useful ally.

  • 35 For example, see William G. Broughton, “Earthly Store Prepared for God’s Sanctuary,” in Benjamin Ha (...)
  • 36 Austin Cooper, “Bishop Broughton and the Diocese of Australia,” in Brian Porter (ed.), Colonial Tra (...)
  • 37 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to Rev. A. M. Campbell (9 December 1834), Bodl. CAS, USPG (...)
  • 38 George P. Shaw, “The Promotion of Civilization,” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society(...)

27Importantly, Broughton was very much concerned with the role architecture could play in this new and uncertain world of religious pluralism. To be sure, it would bring much needed order and discipline to Anglican worship, but he could also see how it might be used to enhance the physical presence of the Church, thus asserting both its dignity and identity.35 In this sense, architecture was a part of Broughton’s wider policy that the English Church must present a respectable and strong intellectual face to the colonists of Australia if it was to counter indifference, encourage loyalty and combat the growing tide of Roman Catholicism—all ambitions that were at the heart of Spg when first incorporated.36 It had been a definite concern of Broughton’s almost since his arrival in Australia that there were no buildings for the “decent celebration of the Worship of God”.37 As one of the agitators behind the establishment of the Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund, Broughton understood perhaps better than anyone in Australia the benefits that organised religion and its architecture could bring to the development of civil society in a fledgling colony.38

  • 39 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to A. M. Campbell (2 June 1837), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, (...)

28To this end Broughton worked tirelessly to promote the cause of church building in Australia. He encouraged the erection of correct, “church like” buildings when and wherever he could, and was not afraid to employ architecture to maximum advantage, having spent his entire Spg grant for 1837 on building churches.39

  • 40 A Journal of Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Australia in 1845, London: Spg, 1846, p. 17–8.

29For Broughton, the parish system and its “manifestation” through architecture was the most important means by which the presence of the English Church in Australia could be extended and fortified. It was essential, he believed, particularly in the outlying pastoral districts of the colony, that “depositories” of “visible religion” in the form of church buildings be established – buildings “set apart for the decent and orderly administration” of the Anglican faith.40 Indeed, The Ecclesiologist had noted how a colonial bishop must be a church builder.

  • 41 Ibid., p. 21–22; James Grant, Christ Church, Geelong, 1843–1983: A Brief History with Special Empha (...)
  • 42 A Journal of Visitation, op. cit. (note 40), p. 47. Broughton also notes that he superintended cons (...)
  • 43 Ibid. (A Journal of Visitation), p. 18–9.

30In his capacity as bishop, Broughton lived up to this ideal. One can point to numerous examples. We find him, for instance, “maturing plans and calculations” for a timber “slab church” with a local magistrate at Lake George, or jotting down designs on the back of an envelope for a church in Geelong (near Melbourne) (fig. 1), or sending detailed diagrams to his son-in-law at Allynbrook.41 In fact, St Mary the Virgin, Allynbrook (1843), was among his earliest efforts in this regard, a building that was, to his great satisfaction, both “strong” and “secure” in foundation and “so church-like that it cannot be mistaken for anything else”.42 Typical of Broughton’s approach was Christ Church, Cooma (1845–50) (fig. 2). After having arrived in the area (near Canberra) during his diocesan visitation tour of 1845, he “drew out a rough sketch of a small church, in the Early English style of architecture, which, although a mere plagiarism and compilation from other examples, would have sufficient character about it to form a striking and respectable object in the wild and little-frequented neighbourhood where its erection was undertaken”.43

Figure 1: Christ Church, Geelong (Vic), Australia (1844), designed by W. G. Broughton.

Figure 1: Christ Church, Geelong (Vic), Australia (1844), designed by W. G. Broughton.

Source: G. A. Bremner.

Figure 2: Christ Church, Cooma (New South Wales), Australia (1845-50), designed by W. G. Broughton.

Figure 2: Christ Church, Cooma (New South Wales), Australia (1845-50), designed by W. G. Broughton.

Source: G. A. Bremner.

  • 44 For Broughton’s views on church architecture in this respect, and how the Spg could assist, see unp (...)

31As Broughton’s many letters to his friends and supporters back in England illustrate, it was precisely buildings such as this that Spg funds were ploughed into—buildings that formed the crucial first steps in making manifest the now renewed, global intent of the Church of England.44

  • 45 Eccl., vol. 1, no. 1, November 1841, p. 4–5. To aid Selwyn in his endeavours, the Cambridge Camden (...)

32Like Broughton, the concern to transmit a correct and worthy form of Anglican ecclesiastical architecture weighed heavily on the mind of the new bishop of New Zealand, the Rev. George Augustus Selwyn (1809–78). Selwyn was the first Anglican bishop to be appointed under the Cbf scheme. His earnest spirituality and scholarly aptitude drew him naturally towards the finer points of architecture. Significantly, upon being elevated as bishop in 1841 he was made a patron member of the Cambridge Camden Society, a connection that would prove useful to him in his early days in New Zealand. Indeed, before leaving for his new diocese in December that year, Selwyn asked the Camden Society to furnish him with “designs and models” for a cathedral and several parish churches. It was noted that one model of a good parish church would be sufficient at first, for the churches he intended to erect would be some two hundred miles apart.45

  • 46 See A. G. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8), p. 46–56.
  • 47 For the “Selwyn churches” see C. R. Knight, The Selwyn Churches of Auckland, Wellington: A. H. and (...)
  • 48 Allan K. Davidson, Selwyn’s Legacy: The College of St. John the Evangelist TeWaimate and Auckland, (...)

33The going was not easy for Selwyn at first, but he persisted, and by the late 1840s he had managed to erect several neat churches in and around the Auckland area.46 The interesting thing about these buildings from an ecclesiological perspective is that most of them were built in timber, resulting in a rather unique style of architecture now referred to as “Selwyn Gothic”.47 Among the first and best examples of this style is the chapel at St. John’s College, Tamaki (near Auckland), which was a theological training institution set up by Selwyn shortly after his arrival.48 This is important because not only was Selwyn a Cbf appointee but his new college was supported financially by the Spg, making it a bastion of orthodox Anglicanism.

  • 49 This level of control was typical of Selwyn. For instance, in The New Zealand Church Almanac (1847) (...)

34Designed and built in 1847, the St John’s College chapel remains an extraordinary work of ecclesiastical architecture (fig. 3). Knowing that he could not build in stone owing to the menacing threat of earthquakes, Selwyn sought a form of timber construction that would nonetheless express a sense of solidity comparable to that of stone. As timber was widely regarded to be a temporary building material, the aim was to make the chapel as structurally sturdy as possible, employing “honest” construction techniques, while giving a distinct impression of stability. This was important to Selwyn because, in striving to establish his collegiate institution, and in his efforts to inculcate the discipline and ordinances of the English Church to full effect, he believed that the authority and independence of his episcopal office rested on this building’s perceived strength. Weakness in this regard was fatal, both physically and morally. If the Anglican Church was to be taken seriously in New Zealand, then it was crucial that it be seen to be strong, useful and real.49

Figure 3: St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), designed by G. A. Selwyn and F. Thatcher.

Figure 3: St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), designed by G. A. Selwyn and F. Thatcher.

Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.

  • 50 Margaret H. Alington, An Excellent Recruit: Frederick Thatcher – Architect, Priest and Private Secr (...)
  • 51 Unpublished letter, T. B. Hutton to his father (20 May 1847), Selwyn Archive, Selwyn College Librar (...)

35The chapel’s impression of strength comes from the particular manner in which it was built. The main structure is composed mainly of kauri, a good medium-to-high strength native timber. The distinguishing feature is the way the principal bracing elements are exposed externally—an idea that was brought to the project by the architect Selwyn put in charge of its erection, Frederick Thatcher.50 This external bracing certainly gave the chapel added strength. But there was an aesthetic purpose, too. Today the whole of the exterior is painted white, but when first completed, the bracing elements were deliberately picked out in a darker colour so as to give a “substantial look”.51 The overall effect is one of compactness and vigour.

  • 52 Patteson quoted in Ian J. Lochhead, “Remembering the Middle Ages: Responses to the Gothic Revival i (...)

36The interior is equally spectacular (fig. 4). Also composed entirely of timber, and stained deep auburn, it is an intense yet contemplative space. Contributing to the effect are the small windows which admit only a limited amount of light, evoking feelings of devotion and capturing that sense of “dim religious light” so prized in the medieval churches of England. Upon his arrival in Auckland in 1855, the future bishop of Melanesia, the Rev. J. C. Patteson, observed with some surprise that the interior was like that of a “really good ecclesiastical building in England … Here my eye and mind rested contentedly and peacefully … [it] is already dear to me”.52

Figure 4: Interior of St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), constructed using local timbers.

Figure 4: Interior of St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), constructed using local timbers.

Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.

37Other churches of a similar ilk erected by Selwyn at this time include those at Remuera (St Mark’s) and Parnell (St Barnabas’s) – St Barnabas’s intended initially for Māori converts. There were a number of larger timber churches erected in the area as well, such as St Peter’s, Onehunga (1848), and All Saints’, Howick (1847) (fig. 5 and 6), both of which were prefabricated in the carpentry workshop at St John’s College, all according to “correct” ecclesiological principles, as far as was practicable.

Figure 5: All Saints’ church, Howick, near Auckland, New Zealand (1847).

Figure 5: All Saints’ church, Howick, near Auckland, New Zealand (1847).

Source: G. A. Bremner.

Figure 6: St. Peter’s church, Onehunga, New Zealand (1848), by Frederick Thatcher.

Figure 6: St. Peter’s church, Onehunga, New Zealand (1848), by Frederick Thatcher.

Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.

  • 53 See Documents Relative to the Erection and Endowment, op. cit. (note 20), p. 48.
  • 54 For instance, see Grey’s contributions in Bodleian Library, Oxford (hereafter Bodl.): MS. Top. Oxon (...)
  • 55 Thomas Mozley, Reminiscences, Chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, London: Longmans, G (...)
  • 56 Eccl., vol. 11, no. 60, June 1853, p. 159.
  • 57 In his letters back to England, Feild describes Grey as “a very valuable acquisition” and describes (...)

38This approach developed by Selwyn and his colleagues in New Zealand was very similar to that adopted half a world away in the frost-bitten environs of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this case it was the Rev. William Grey (1819–72), Oxford graduate and keen ecclesiologist, who led the way. Grey arrived in Newfoundland in 1848, via Bermuda, as chaplain to the Rev. Edward Feild, who was the Spg -sponsored bishop of Newfoundland.53 While a student at Magdalen College, Oxford, in the early 1840s, Grey was heavily involved in matters architectural, being a regular contributor to the events and publications of the Oxford Architectural Society.54 He was, as Thomas Mozley later recalled, a “thorough ecclesiologist”,55 and, as an Spg missionary, his impact on the development of church architecture in the hyperborean climes of Newfoundland and Labrador was profound. Indeed, owing to his extensive knowledge of ecclesiastical architecture, Grey had “the office” of diocesan architect foisted upon him.56 His arrival in Newfoundland was especially welcome by Feild who was able to appoint him, among other things, principal of Queen’s (theological) College—an institution that was also supported by the Spg.57 In this capacity, Grey gave lectures on architecture to trainee clergymen twice a week.

  • 58 The Times, 9 October 1872.
  • 59 Colonial Church Chronicle, vol. 8, January 1855, p. 247.

39According to Feild, Grey worked hard at devising a form of church architecture that would suit the particular conditions the Church faced in Newfoundland and Labrador. As with Broughton and Selwyn before him, this entailed careful consideration of the circumstances, including the availability of materials, local building expertise and the wider environmental context. This last consideration was especially important, it seems, as Grey wanted an ecclesiology that was appropriate to both the “climate and scenery”.58 After all, it was reported with grim remorse in the Colonial Church Chronicle that Newfoundland was a land “without a sheltering tree, or depth enough … earth to dig a grave”, and where one could often expect nothing more than a “crop of cold snow”59 (fig. 7).

Figure 7: Panoramic sketch by William Grey of Petty Harbour, Newfoundland, 1857.

Figure 7: Panoramic sketch by William Grey of Petty Harbour, Newfoundland, 1857.

Source: St John's (Newfoundland, Canada), Memorial University.

  • 60 The Times, 9 October 1872.
  • 61 For Grey’s ecclesiological interests in a wider context, see P. J. Leader, The Hon. Reverend Willia (...)

40Given these harsh climatic conditions, and the problems with masonry construction, the outcome was a simple, even “severe”, ecclesiology in timber—what Feild referred to as Grey’s “particular style”.60 We see evidence of this “style” in the churches he designed for Forteau, Battle Harbour, Oderin and Portugal Cove (figs. 8 and 9).61 All of these places were coastal fishing villages, Forteau and Battle Harbour being particularly remote locations along the southern coast of Labrador.

Figure 8: St. Peter’s church, Forteau, Labrador (c.1855), designed by William Grey.

Figure 8: St. Peter’s church, Forteau, Labrador (c.1855), designed by William Grey.

Source: St John's (Newfoundland, Canada), Anglican Diocesan Archive.

Figure 9: Spg mission church at Oderin, Newfoundland (c.1855), designed by William Grey

Figure 9: Spg mission church at Oderin, Newfoundland (c.1855), designed by William Grey

Source: Oxford (United Kingdom), Bodleian Library, Archive of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG).

  • 62 On this point Grey noted that “the sudden changes from frost to thaw, the high winds with furious s (...)
  • 63 Eccl., 8, no. 44, October 1850, p. 200–201.

41Unfortunately, most of Grey’s buildings no longer survive, but we get some sense of just how simple and severe they were from original drawings and photographs. In each instance we see an approach to ecclesiastical design that was broadly minimalist. Bold and simple forms, composed of solid stud framing in timber, exposed to the exterior, with infill panels of weatherboard.62 Again, in this respect, Grey’s churches are somewhat reminiscent of Selwyn’s in New Zealand. Moreover, as Grey was in receipt of Spg funds, reports by him appeared in the Quarterly Papers of the Spg on a semi regular basis, often accompanied by an illustration. One such shows his collaboration with William Hay over the design of the mission church at St Francis’ Harbour, Labrador (1850) (fig. 10)—a church that was noted and praised by none other than The Ecclesiologist.63

Figure 10: Spg mission church at St. Francis’ Harbour, Labrador (1850), designed by William Hay and William Grey.

Figure 10: Spg mission church at St. Francis’ Harbour, Labrador (1850), designed by William Hay and William Grey.

Source: Oxford (United Kingdom), Bodleian Library, Archive of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG).

Conclusion

  • 64 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to E. Hawkins (3 June 1850), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, CLR/ (...)

42As modest as these examples may be, they are broadly indicative of much early colonial ecclesiology in three ways. First, they reiterate the important role played by fully-ordained and licenced Anglican clergy in facilitating church design and construction throughout the British empire, ipso facto representing the interests of orthodox and corporate Anglicanism. Second, they illustrates the desire and expectation that Anglican architecture in the colonies should be a true “Christian” art in its deployment of the pointed style, while remaining cheap; this included the “prescribed forms of adoration”, as Broughton called them, by means of correct liturgical arrangement—something that the Spg would have wholeheartedly approved, especially as its money was being used for precisely these purposes. And, third, through their “goodly”, compact form and solid construction, they symbolised the struggle of the English Church in the colonies, standing as a monument to the perseverance of the faith in what were understood as 'wild' and God-forsaken lands.64

  • 65 Eccl., vol. 9, no. 49, August 1851.
  • 66 A Journal of Visitation, op. cit. (note 40), p. 18. See also Broughton, “Earthly Store Prepared”, o (...)

43As the Rev. W. H. Walsh observed, the contrast struck between the strangeness of the uncultivated environs in which such structures stood and the familiarity of their church like appearance established a productive tension that both excited and encouraged feelings of reverence among the scattered inhabitants.65 This is what Broughton referred to as the “spiritual efficacy and impressiveness” of proper church architecture.66 In this sense, these buildings were not only an “externalisation” of Anglican faith and doctrine, as the ecclesiologists would have it, and the Cbf and Spg no doubt wished, but an expression also of the corporate nature and identity of that peculiar brand of Protestantism known as the Church of England.

Haut de page

Notes

1 G. A. Bremner, “The Architecture of the Universities’ Mission to Central Africa: Developing a Vernacular Tradition in the Anglican Mission Field, 1861-1908,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 68, no. 4, 2009, p. 514–39.

2 On Livingstone’s connection with the Lms, see discussions of his early life in William G. Blaikie, Personal Life of David Livingstone, London: John Murray, 1913, p. 15–30; Andrew C. Ross, David Livingstone: Mission and Empire, London; New York: Hambledon and London, 2002, p. 11–26. John Mackenzie has also noted the mythical status that Livingstone attained as an explorer and missionary in his own lifetime and beyond, highlighting the cult-like character associated with his personal accomplishments. See John M. Mackenzie, “David Livingstone: The Construction of the Myth,” in Graham Walker and Tom Gallagher (eds.), Sermons and Battle Hymns: Protestant Popular Culture in Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990, p. 2442.

3 This is what John Venn, member of the Clapham Sect and leading founder of the Cms, described as the ’Church-Principle’; that 1) it is the right of Christian men who sympathize with one another to combine for a common object, 2) spiritual work must be done by spiritual men. See Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society: its Environment, its Men and its Work, London: Cms, 1899, vol. 1, p. 65.

4 Appendix to Spg Report of 1706 quoted in Henry P. Thompson, Into All Lands: The History of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701–1950, London: Spck, 1951, p. 26. It was noted in 1851 that this was “in strict accordance with the system of our Church of England”. See Origins and Objects of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, London: Richard Clay, 1851.

5 In time the selection of Spg missionaries became highly regulated, requiring each applicant to be approved by a Board of Examiners nominated by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London. See Henry P. Thompson, Into All Lands: The History of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701–1950, op. cit. (note 4), p. 113.

6 Andrew Porter, Religion versus Empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914, Manchester: Manchester UP, 2004, p. 20.

7 In this respect he also perceived it as the Church’s “right arm”. Samuel Wilberforce, “Upon Our Duty to the Aboriginal Inhabitants of Our Colonies” (1840), in Henry Rowley (ed.), Speeches on Missions by the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., London: William Wells Gardner, 1874, p. 89. For the SPG’s role vis-à-vis the State, see also Daniel O’Connor, Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701-2000, London: Continuum, 2000, p. 7–8; Rowan Strong, Anglicanism and the British Empire c.1700-1850, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 32–3, p. 108; and Hilary M. Carey, God’s Empire: Religion and Colonialism in the British World, c.1801-1908, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 2011, p. 84–7.

8 G. A. Bremner, Imperial Gothic: Religious Architecture and High Anglican Culture in the British Empire, c.1840-1870, New Haven; London: Yale UP, 2013.

9 Henry P. Thompson, op. cit. (note 4), p. 17.

10 Ibid., p. 16.

11 The SPG’s Royal Charter quoted in ibid., p. 17.

12 Daniel O’Connor et al., Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701-2000, op. cit. (note 7), p. 7.

13 The SPG’s Royal Charter quoted in Henry P. Thompson, op. cit. (note 4), p. 18.

14 Andrew Porter, op. cit. (note 6), p. 16–28.

15 For the State-related ’imperial’ imperative of the SPG, especially in its early days, see Rowan Strong, “A Vision of an Anglican Imperialism: The Annual Sermons of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts 1701-14,” Journal of Religious History, vol. 30, no. 2, 2006, p. 175–98. For a good sense of how the SPG saw itself in this regard by the 1850s, see Theophilus Jones, The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Queen’s Letter, and Church Societies, London: Joseph Masters, 1854.

16 Hilary M. Carey, God’s Empire: Religion and Colonialism in the British World, c.1801-1908, op. cit. (note 7), p. 85–86; See also Alan L. Hayes, Anglicanism in Canada: Controversies and Identity in Historical Perspective, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 13–6, p. 50–65; Daniel O’Connell, op. cit. (note 7), p. 66–7.

17 For a very helpful account of the constitutional and legal situation of the Church of England in the colonies, see George W. O. Addleshaw, “The Law and Constitution of the Church Overseas,” in Edmund R. Morgan and Roger B. Lloyd (eds.), The Mission of the Anglican Communion, London: Spck, 1948, p. 74–98.

18 Even so, the Spg’s average annual income between the years 1836 and 1851 was £60,726. See Origins and Objects, op. cit. (note 4).

19 For instance, home parish support for the SPG increased dramatically during the middle decades of the 19th century. See Daniel O’Connor, op. cit. (note 7), p. 59.

20 For a brief history of the Cbf, see Walter F. France, The Oversea Episcopate: Centenary History of the Colonial Bishoprics Fund, 1841–1941, London: Cbf, 1941; and Rowan Strong, “The Resurgence of Colonial Anglicanism: the Colonial Bishoprics Fund, 1840-1,” in Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory (eds.), Studies in Church History: Revival and Resurgence in Christian History, vol. 44, 2008, p. 196–213. See also, Proceedings at a Meeting of the Clergy and Laity Specially Called by His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury … Towards the Endowment of Additional Colonial Bishoprics, London: Rivingtons, 1841; and Documents Relative to the Erection and Endowment of Additional Bishoprics in the Colonies, 1841–1855, London: Spck, 1855.

21 See “The Colonial Bishoprics Act 1841,” in Roy P. Flindall (ed.), The Church of England 1815-1948: A Documentary History, London: Spck, 1972, p. 98–100. See also George W. O. Addleshaw, “The Law and Constitution of the Church Overseas,” op. cit. (note 17), p. 83–4; Hans Cnattingius, Bishops and Society: A Study of Anglican Colonial and Missionary Expansion, 1698–1950, London: Spck, 1952.

22 Daniel O’Connor et al., Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701-2000, op. cit. (note 7), p. 60. On Hawkins’s contribution to the Spg, Thompson notes: “On [his] retirement in 1864 the Society gratefully recorded the progress made during his 26 years of service. The figures are notable; income had risen from £16,557 to £19,703, missionaries from 180 to 493, colonial bishoprics from 8 to 47; at home, the parishes supporting the Society had increased from 290 to 7,270 and Incorporated Members from 344 to 1,477”. Henry P. Thompson, op. cit. (note 4), p. 230.

23 Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society, op. cit. (note 3), p. 65.

24 S. L. Ollard, “The Oxford Architectural and Historical Society and the Oxford Movement,” Oxoniensia, vol. 5, 1940, p. 146–60. For example, by 1845 the society was stating: “The number of Churches now fast rising in every part of the country, renders it of the highest importance to provide for the cultivation of correct Architectural Taste”. See The Rules and Proceedings of the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture [hereafter Rules and Proceedings], 1845, p. 2.

25 For the wider national and imperial dimensions of this debate, see G. A. Bremner, “Nation and Empire in the Government Architecture of Mid-Victorian London: The Foreign and India Office Reconsidered,” Historical Journal, vol. 48, no. 3, 2005, p. 703–42.

26 The Ecclesiologist [hereafter Eccl.], vol. 1, no. 1, November 1841, p. 4–5. Rules and Proceedings, 7 June 1843, p. 11; 27 June 1843, p. 13; 15 November 1843, p. 7–16; 3 June 1845, p. 81; 23 June 1846, p. 18.

27 This publication was originally referred to as Instrumenta Ecclesiastica, or, A Series of Working Designs for the Furniture, Fittings, and Decorations of Churches and Their Precincts, London: John van Voorst, 1847.

28 G. A. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8), p. 56–68.

29 George W. O. Addleshaw and Frederick Etchells, The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship, London: Faber and Faber, 1948, p. 203–204; Kenneth Clark, The Gothic Revival: An Essay in the History of Taste, London: John Murray, 1962, p. 174; and Joe Mordaunt Crook, The Dilemma of Style: Architectural Ideals from the Picturesque to the Post-Modern, London: John Murray, 1989, p. 63.

30 A. G. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8).

31 Eccl., new ser., vol. 1, no. 1, January 1845, p. 31.

32 Frederick T. Whitington, William Grant Broughton: Bishop of Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1936, p. 180–90.

33 George P. Shaw, “Supporting a Colonial Bishop and Patriot: William Grant Broughton and the Society,” in Daniel O’Connor, op. cit. (note 7), p. 294.

34 Bruce N. Kaye, “Broughton and the Demise of the Royal Supremacy,” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, vol. 81, 1995, p. 39–51. For the consequences of the Church Act, see Patricia Curthoys, “State Support for Churches, 1836–1860,” in Bruce Kaye, T.R Frame, Colin Holden and Geoffrey R. TReloar (eds.), Anglicanism in Australia: A History, Melbourne: Melbourne UP, 2002, p. 31–51; Rowan Strong, Anglicanism and the British Empire, c.1700–1850, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007, p. 228–9.

35 For example, see William G. Broughton, “Earthly Store Prepared for God’s Sanctuary,” in Benjamin Harrison (ed.), Sermons on the Church of England: Its Constitution, Mission, and Trials, London: Bell and Daldy, 1857, p. 222–34.

36 Austin Cooper, “Bishop Broughton and the Diocese of Australia,” in Brian Porter (ed.), Colonial Tractarians: The Oxford Movement in Australia, Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian Education, 1989, p. 31.

37 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to Rev. A. M. Campbell (9 December 1834), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, CLR/200 (Australia).

38 George P. Shaw, “The Promotion of Civilization,” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, vol. 74, no. 2, October 1988, p. 99–111.

39 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to A. M. Campbell (2 June 1837), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, CLR/200 (Australia).

40 A Journal of Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Australia in 1845, London: Spg, 1846, p. 17–8.

41 Ibid., p. 21–22; James Grant, Christ Church, Geelong, 1843–1983: A Brief History with Special Emphasis on the Foundation Years, Melbourne, 1983, p. 10.

42 A Journal of Visitation, op. cit. (note 40), p. 47. Broughton also notes that he superintended construction of the church himself (p. 44). See unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to W. Boydell (29 May 1843), BPML, MS 913.

43 Ibid. (A Journal of Visitation), p. 18–9.

44 For Broughton’s views on church architecture in this respect, and how the Spg could assist, see unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to A. M. Campbell (9 December 1834), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, CLR/200 (Australia).

45 Eccl., vol. 1, no. 1, November 1841, p. 4–5. To aid Selwyn in his endeavours, the Cambridge Camden Society was to supply him with a plan for a simple parish church in the Norman style based on that of Than near Caen in Normandy. It was considered an ideal exemplar of ecclesiastical architecture because it was, as Cotman had noted, an “unaltered” specimen in the “true Norman style” – a style that, appropriately enough, had been brought to the shores of Cotman’s own country by “Teutonic colonists” 750 years earlier. See Eccl., vol. 1, no. 2, December 1841, p. 31; John S. Cotman, Architectural Antiquities of Normandy, London: J. and A. Arch, 1822, Preface and p. 15.

46 See A. G. Bremner, op. cit. (note 8), p. 46–56.

47 For the “Selwyn churches” see C. R. Knight, The Selwyn Churches of Auckland, Wellington: A. H. and A. W. Reed, 1972; and Jonathan Mane-Wheoki, “Selwyn Gothic: The Formative Years,” Art New Zealand, no. 54, Autumn 1990, p. 76–81.

48 Allan K. Davidson, Selwyn’s Legacy: The College of St. John the Evangelist TeWaimate and Auckland, 1843–1992, Auckland: St John’s College, 1993.

49 This level of control was typical of Selwyn. For instance, in The New Zealand Church Almanac (1847), it is stated: “The plans of the Buildings must be approved by the Bishop, or by some person appointed by him.”

50 Margaret H. Alington, An Excellent Recruit: Frederick Thatcher – Architect, Priest and Private Secretary in Early New Zealand, Auckland: Polygraphia, 2007.

51 Unpublished letter, T. B. Hutton to his father (20 May 1847), Selwyn Archive, Selwyn College Library, Cambridge: A, 5.26.a. According to Hutton, the bracing elements were first painted in boiled oil and then painted with a “tinge of umber”.

52 Patteson quoted in Ian J. Lochhead, “Remembering the Middle Ages: Responses to the Gothic Revival in Colonial New Zealand,” in Jaynie Anderson (ed.), Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence. The Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress in the History of Art, Carlton, Victoria: Miegunyah Press, 2009 (Miegunyag Press series), p. 537.

53 See Documents Relative to the Erection and Endowment, op. cit. (note 20), p. 48.

54 For instance, see Grey’s contributions in Bodleian Library, Oxford (hereafter Bodl.): MS. Top. Oxon. D. 168.

55 Thomas Mozley, Reminiscences, Chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1882, 2 vols., p. 334–5.

56 Eccl., vol. 11, no. 60, June 1853, p. 159.

57 In his letters back to England, Feild describes Grey as “a very valuable acquisition” and describes his “qualifications as an architect … so good and useful”. See unpublished letters, E. Feild to E. Hawkins (21 and 30 May 1849), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive: CLR/159 (Newfoundland).

58 The Times, 9 October 1872.

59 Colonial Church Chronicle, vol. 8, January 1855, p. 247.

60 The Times, 9 October 1872.

61 For Grey’s ecclesiological interests in a wider context, see P. J. Leader, The Hon. Reverend William Grey, M.A., MTh thesis, Queen’s College, St John’s, Newfoundland, 1998, p. 48–52, 91–107. For a specific discussion of the churches mentioned above, see Shane O’Dea and Peter Coffman, “William Grey: ’Missionary’ of Gothic in Newfoundland,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada, vol. 32, no. 1, 2007, p. 39–48.

62 On this point Grey noted that “the sudden changes from frost to thaw, the high winds with furious snow-drifts, together with the poor materials, render a very simple outline quite necessary”. Eccl., vol. 11, no. 60, June 1853, p. 159.

63 Eccl., 8, no. 44, October 1850, p. 200–201.

64 Unpublished letter, William G. Broughton to E. Hawkins (3 June 1850), Bodl. CAS, USPG Archive, CLR/201 (Australia).

65 Eccl., vol. 9, no. 49, August 1851.

66 A Journal of Visitation, op. cit. (note 40), p. 18. See also Broughton, “Earthly Store Prepared”, op. cit. (note 35).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Christ Church, Geelong (Vic), Australia (1844), designed by W. G. Broughton.
Crédits Source: G. A. Bremner.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 44k
Titre Figure 2: Christ Church, Cooma (New South Wales), Australia (1845-50), designed by W. G. Broughton.
Crédits Source: G. A. Bremner.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 44k
Titre Figure 3: St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), designed by G. A. Selwyn and F. Thatcher.
Crédits Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Figure 4: Interior of St. John’s College chapel, Auckland, New Zealand (1847), constructed using local timbers.
Crédits Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Titre Figure 5: All Saints’ church, Howick, near Auckland, New Zealand (1847).
Crédits Source: G. A. Bremner.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Figure 6: St. Peter’s church, Onehunga, New Zealand (1848), by Frederick Thatcher.
Crédits Source: Auckland (New Zealand), St John's College, Kinder Library.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 24k
Titre Figure 7: Panoramic sketch by William Grey of Petty Harbour, Newfoundland, 1857.
Crédits Source: St John's (Newfoundland, Canada), Memorial University.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 48k
Titre Figure 8: St. Peter’s church, Forteau, Labrador (c.1855), designed by William Grey.
Crédits Source: St John's (Newfoundland, Canada), Anglican Diocesan Archive.
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 20k
Titre Figure 9: Spg mission church at Oderin, Newfoundland (c.1855), designed by William Grey
Crédits Source: Oxford (United Kingdom), Bodleian Library, Archive of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG).
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Titre Figure 10: Spg mission church at St. Francis’ Harbour, Labrador (1850), designed by William Hay and William Grey.
Crédits Source: Oxford (United Kingdom), Bodleian Library, Archive of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG).
URL http://abe.revues.org/docannexe/image/357/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 38k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

G. A. Bremner, « The Corporatisation of Global Anglicanism », ABE Journal [En ligne], 2 | 2012, mis en ligne le 01 septembre 2012, consulté le 23 octobre 2017. URL : http://abe.revues.org/357 ; DOI : 10.4000/abe.357

Haut de page

Auteur

G. A. Bremner

Senior Lecturer, School of Arts, Culture and Environment, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
La revue ABE Journal est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo INHA
  • Logo CNRS – Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • Logo In Visu
  • Revues.org