No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
A well-to-do prebendary of the eighteenth century might spend a part of his time in his cathedral close, a part in his other benefices, a part in some favourite country home, a part in London seeking favour in the court which could lead to a bishopric. He might even, like Dr Vesey Stanhope in Barchester Towers, spend years abroad, never doing a day's duty in Barchester Close – ‘and yet there was no reason against his doing duty except a want of inclination on his own part’. Dr Stanhope was doubtless intended to represent standards of the eighteenth century surviving into the nineteenth; and there is no doubt that non-residence was widespread, pluralism common in the eighteenth century. It has often and reasonably been said that these were no novelty: their roots go back to the refoundation of secular cathedrals after the Norman Conquest; non-residence and pluralism rose and fell in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, rose again to remarkable heights in the fifteenth; Thomas Wolsey set a standard of pluralism no later prelate could scale, yet the reformers – for all their squeamish phrases – made little permanent impression on these practices, which survived into the age of Trollope. But it is exceedingly difficult to find any precise evidence as to how the pluralists of any age filled their time. The interest of Thomas Gooch (1675–1754) nes precisely in this: until he became bishop of Norwich he was a canon of Chichester and of Canterbury, whose cathedral records throw some light on his residence, and Master of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where his periods of residence are exactly known. These three offices divided his attention. It is true that he was also archdeacon of Essex, and held other preferment besides, but such evidence as we have suggests that this involved him in only occasional duties: we have found evidence of six occasions when he held archdeacon's visitations in person.
Research for this paper has been undertaken in Cambridge by Christopher Brooke, in Chichester and Chelmsford by Joyce Horn and in Canterbury by Nigel Ramsay: each of them warmly acknowledges the kindness of the college, cathedral and county archivists, and Christopher Brooke is particularly indebted to the advice and correction of Catherine Hall, archivist of Caius, and of Stephen Taylor. On the political nuances of Gooch's and Sherlock's careers – which no two experts would describe in precisely the same terms – we have had much valued advice from Jonathan Clark and Stephen Taylor, who are not responsible, however, for our formulations (see n. 4).
1 Barchester Towers, London 1857, ch. ix.
2 For his archdeaconry, see below under 1720, 1725, 1729, 1732–3 and 1736; J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1541–1857 (hereinafter cited as Fasti), i, ed. J. M. Horn, London 1969, 9–10, which shows that he resigned it on becoming bishop of Bristol. For other preferment, see esp. Venn, J. et al. , Biographical History of Gonville and Caius College (hereinafter cited as Venn), 7 vols, Cambridge 1897–1978Google Scholar, i. 489, iii. 115–16. This included the united rectory of St Clement, Eastcheap and St Martin, Orgar. For his career in general, see ibid. iii. 115–25; Brooke, C. N. L., A History of Gonville and Caius College (hereinafter cited as Brooke), Woodbridge 1985, 163–70Google Scholar. There is an entertaining account of his Chichester career in Curtis, L. P., Chichester Towers, New Haven 1966Google Scholar, partly based on the Gooch archives to which we have – with much courtesy and firmness – been refused access.
3 Cole, quoted in Venn, iii. 118–19; Brooke, 164. Venn's extracts are mostly taken from BL Add. MS 5828; this passage is from fo. 139.
4 Brooke, 164 n. 19; for Sherlock see Carpenter, E., Thomas Sherlock, 1678–1761, London 1936Google Scholar. There are clearly nuances which cannot be expressed simply by saying that Sherlock remained a Tory and Gooch became a Whig; and it is certain they remained fast friends throughout – and both sought Newcastle's patronage in the end. But for our purpose the statement in the text must suffice.
5 Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn, ed. Fryde, E. B., Greenway, D. E. et al. , London 1986, 231Google Scholar, 245, 260, 263.
6 Venn, iii. 117 (Bart, from 1751), and ibid. 115–16 for his sees, quoting Cole, BL Add. MS 5858, fo. 125, on Bristol ‘where he staid so short a time as never once to have visited his diocese’. For his monument, see Venn, iii. 171.
7 Ibid. iii. 115, cites evidence of his activity in Norwich, especially from Blomefield, F., An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk…, ii, Fersfield 1739, 429–30Google Scholar; and Venn, iii. 116 states, also from Cole: ‘He generally resided at Ely for the three summer months, and the rest of the year in his lodge at Cambridge, or in London’; this is based on Cole in BL Add. MS 5828, fo. 127. In the 1740s his visits to Cambridge were intermittent, and, until illness overtook him in the early 1750s, it is to be presumed that London was his chief place of residence – and doubtless evidence could be unearthed of this, though it is unlikely that it would ever give such a clear picture as we have of his earlier career, cf. Brooke, 168–9; and for evidence of earlier stays in London, ibid. 16gn.: his elder son, Thomas, was born there c. 1720.
8 Venn, iii. 121–2.
9 Venn, iii. 345–89, esp. at p. 350, ‘De residencia…’; cf. Brooke, 14–18, 67–70. For what follows, see Brooke, passim.
10 Venn, iii. 350.
11 The details have been checked and, apart from some obscurities in the accounting of odd days, usually seem to tally – save that there are a few cases in which the Absence Books seem to underestimate his absences: presumably he claimed to have been away on college business part of this time. This is specifically stated of his absence 19–26 August 1723. Doubtless the accounts were based on the Exiit Books – but the elaborate details show care in the preparation of these records which helps to give us confidence in their reliability.
12 This is not to be taken for granted, especially since there were few copies not always readily accessible; but some of Gooch's own notes based on the statutes survive, Gonville and Caius College, MS 602/278, fos 38–41.
13 Statutes and Constitutions of the Cathedral Church of Chichester, ed. Bennett, F. G., Codrington, R. H. and Deedes, C., Chichester 1904, 26, 40.Google Scholar These details are clear in the chapter act book, Chichester, West Sussex Record Office, MS Cap. I/3/3 (hereinafter cited as Ch.), from which our Chichester evidence derives.
14 See Curtis, Chichester Towers. For Gooch's second marriage, see Venn, iii. 116; Sussex Marriage Licences: Deanery of Chichester, 1582–1730, ed. Dunkin, E. H. W. (Sussex Record Society xii, 1911), 168.Google Scholar
15 Curtis, op. cit. 15 (but he cites Ep. I. 49, which seems to be a wrong reference).
16 Ibid. 21, 24; Public Record Office, State Papers 36/36, fos 141, 150.
17 Venn, iii. 119–20 and 119 n. 2, citing the Caius Gesta, 3 Feb. 1731.
18 The Statutes of the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ, Canterbury, ed. Bell, G. K. A., Canterbury 1925, 26–9.Google Scholar
19 See below under 1732.
20 For Gooch's residence in Cambridge 1719–38 see Exiit Book, 1678–1747 (unfoliated). For details in 1719 of Chichester, where Thomas Sherlock had been dean since 1715, see Fasti, ii. 8, 53, 78; Ch., fos 39V-40. Throughout this table we have tried to give enough details to make the picture clear, but not so many as to be confusing: thus after the opening years at Chichester we have not noted absences from chapter except where they are needed to establish a point. We have had to assume that Gooch resided at Chichester in the early years because the dates fit the absences from Caius so perfectly: thus there is a coherence in the evidence for early residence and later non-residence which such a table cannot fully present.
21 For the Chichester residence in this year see Ch., fos 40–3. Gooch was not at the January, August or October chapter meetings. For the archidiaconal visitation see Essex County Record Office, D/AEV (hereinafter cited as D/AEV) 20. Gooch's wife was buried in London, 3 Aug., Register of St. Clement Eastcheap and St. Martin Orgar, ed. Clarke, A. W. Hughes, 2 vols (Harleian Society 1937–8)Google Scholar, ii. 12.
22 For Chichester in this year see Ch., fos 43V–7V.
23 For Chichester in this year see Ch., fos 48–50.
24 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester on 30 Jan. and to start residence on 25 Mar., Ch., fo. 50. For his attendance at the chapters of 2–11 May and 10 Oct. see ibid, fos 60v–2.
25 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester on 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 63. For his Chichester residence in this year see ibid.
26 For Chichester in this year see Ch., fos 72V, 74V. For the archidiaconal visitation see D/AEV 21. Gooch was due to preach at Chichester on 5 Nov., Ch., fo. 72V.
27 For Chichester in this year see Ch., fos 75V, 77.
28 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester on 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 77V. For his Chichester residence in this year see ibid, fos 77V, 78V, 80. On 31 May he wrote a stern letter from Chichester to Cambridge to preserve the open space between the Senate House and the Old Schools, Brooke, 172: it is still there. The licence for his second marriage, to take place in St Peter the Great, Chichester, was dated 10 Aug. (see above n. 14).
29 For Chichester in this year see Ch., fos 81, 84V, 89r–v.
30 For the archidiaconal visitation see D/AEV 21. Gooch was absent from the Chichester May chapter in this year, so perhaps did a short residence. He missed all the other chapter meetings as well, Ch., fos 89V–92.
31 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 92. For his Chichester residence and attendance at the May chapter, see ibid, fos 92, 93V. For Canterbury, see Canterbury Cathedral, Dean and Chapter Archives, Chapter Act Book, 1727–45 (hereinafter cited as Ca.), fos 42–3, 44–5; ibid. Preachers Book, 1712–66 (hereinafter cited as CaP). The archbishop's fiat for his institution is Lambeth Palace Library MS VB I/9, p. 275. The pattern of residence at Canterbury is confirmed by the diaela money payments in Treasurer's Books, 1730–8.
32 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 95. For his Chichester residence see Ch., fos 95, 96. For Canterbury see CaP; Ca. fos 54V–9V.
33 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 97. For the archidiaconal visitation see D/AEV 22. At Canterbury, he was chosen for residence in the fourth quarter, Ca., fo. 6iv, but evidently resided in the second, occurring 10, 15 May, 10, II, 22–30 June, 3 July, Ca., fos 67–73; CaP. At Chichester, he was chosen for residence 25 Mar-24 June, Ch., fo. 97, but was not present then. For his attendance at the August and October chapters and for much of late 1732, and for his residence Dec. 1732-Mar. 1733, see ibid, fos 104–5.
34 For the archidiaconal visitation see D/AEV 22. Gooch missed sixty-six out of his ninety days' residence at Canterbury in 1733, and so probably resided for twenty-four days between early April and early May, Ca., fo. 86. He wrote from Cambridge on 6 Sept., BL Add. MS 32688, fo. 281, and from Caius on 5 Feb. 1734, ibid. Add. MS 32689, fo. 156.
35 Gooch was due to preach at Chichester 30 Jan., Ch., fo. 107V. At Canterbury, he was chosen for residence in the second quarter and was certainly there 10 Apr., Ca., fos 86v, 90, but his Chichester residence should also have been 25 Mar.-24 June, Ch., fo. 107V. He was certainly present at the Chichester August chapter, ibid. fo. in, and may have been in Chichester mid-May-early Aug., as he was not in Cambridge, nor in Canterbury May-June or 5 Aug., Ca., fos 90–6. He wrote from Caius on 15 Aug. and 10 Oct., BL Add. MS 32689, fos 353, 453.
36 Gooch was chosen for residence at Chichester 25 Mar-24 June, Ch., fo. 111, but was in London 1 Apr., BL Add. MS 5831, fo. 168. May witnessed the opening of the crisis at Chichester which seems to have kept him mainly there until spring 1736, Curtis, Chichester Towers, 21, 24; Ch., fos 115, 117. He wrote from Chichester on 9 May, BL Add. MS 32690, fo. 32. For Canterbury see Ca., fos 103V–6; CaP.
37 For Chichester, see Ch., fos 115, 117. For the archidiaconal visitation, see D/AEV 22. For Canterbury, see CaP.
38 Gooch was due to preach in Chichester on 19 May and perhaps did so, Ch., fo. 122v. He was also due for residence 29 Sept.-21 Dec, ibid. fo. 126v, but evidently did not perform it. For the confirmation of his election as bishop of Bristol on 11 June, see Lambeth MS VB 1/8, p. 79; for his consecration, see ibid. p. 80; Register of Archbishop John Potter, fos 23V–33. On 23 June the Canterbury chapter act book records the exhibition of a royal dispensation from residence, Canterbury Cathedral, Dean and Chapter Archives, Dean's Book, 1718–42, fo. 304V. For his preaching 3 July, see CaP. His fiat for commendam, permitting him to hold his two prebends and other benefices with the bishopric of Bristol, is in Lambeth MS F II/1737/28, 3 June. However, he resigned the archdeaconry of Essex, D/AEV 22; cf. PRO, C 66/3597.
39 For Gooch's residence in London see Lords Journals xxv (1738), 158–271Google Scholar; he wrote from Dean's Yard, Westminster on 1 Apr., BL Add. MS 32691, fo. 105. He attended no chapter meeting in Chichester and was absent from Cambridge for nearly one-and-a-half years, 20 Jan. 1738–20 June 1739 – his visits to Cambridge in his early years as a bishop were brief. It was said by Cole that he never visited Bristol (see above n. 6). For his translation to Norwich, see Lambeth VB I/8, p. 116 (royal assent, confirmed 13 Oct.); Reg. Potter, fos 51–9V.
40 See above n. 17.
41 See Brooke, 167–8.
42 Ibid.; on Newcastle and Cambridge see esp. Winstanley, D. A., The University of Cambridge in the 18th Century, Cambridge 1922.Google Scholar