The Rebuilding of Wigan Parish Church in early Victorian times.

INTRODUCTION

This note looks at the circumstances surrounding the rebuilding of Wigan Parish Church (All Saints) in early Victorian times. Whilst it is the ancient “mother church” for the district, most of the current building only dates from 1845 to 1850. The rebuilding of older parish churches was especially common in nineteenth century Lancashire, driven by massive population growth, economic expansion and a religious revival. What makes Wigan a little different from its neighbours such as Blackburn, Preston or Bolton, was in its rebuilding aims. This project was not aimed at enlarging the church nor making it significantly grander or in redeveloping it in a more fashionable style. It was essentially to produce a “better copy” of the existing church and indeed it incorporated very significant parts of the older building in its reconstruction. From both the current and past perspectives, this ‘conservative’ approach to rebuilding that looked to the past rather than the future seems curious and needs explanation.

The established answer as to why this rebuilding occurred is covered in the various guidebooks on the history of the church and town. Whilst these differ slightly in emphasis, they tend to stress that in 1844 the building was in a ruinous condition and that architects proposed a new church in its place. Following this move, there was a rebellion against pulling down the old church by the parishioners, who rejected the scheme for a number of years. It was only with the “well timed zeal “ of the Churchwarden Hon Colin Lindsay that a compromise was reached. Namely, that a largely rebuilt church should be erected, but which was to be as similar to the old one as possible.

This explanation, which emphasises the victory of the parishioner’s wishes, has generally been accepted over the years. However following a chance reading of some correspondence involving James Lindsay 7th Earl of Balcarres, it became clear that this version of events is incomplete and not the full story. To try to establish what actually happened, a review of all contempory sources has been undertaken, including literature produced for the Consecration of the Church in 1850, the Report of the Churchwardens and Accounts (1851), Wigan Archive evidence and the three surviving letters on the topic from the Crawford Muniments. It has also taken account of extensive secondary sources including church guides and contextual material. However it needs to be stated that this period is not well served in terms of further detailed records. Importantly the Churchwarden Accounts and Vestry minutes are missing from 1833 to 1871. Despite this, there is a wealth of information on the nature of the works, how much they cost and how the monies were raised. What the sources don’t provide is a complete picture of how and why decisions were taken. However they contain enough information to challenge the established story and allow a fresh perspective to be taken.

Indeed the balance of evidence suggests that the whole episode was far more complicated than that portrayed and not surprisingly seems to have been driven by financial issues. Also the role of two of the most important individuals in the Parish, namely the Earl of Balcarres of Haigh and the Rector of Wigan has been largely neglected. They clearly played key decision making roles in the events leading up to the rebuilding works.

CONDITION OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REBUILDING

There is little doubt that the largely medieval church in Wigan was in a poor condition in 1844. There had been a number of reports of structural problems and of patching repairs in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries. However it had always been pronounced safe. Like many older churches it had been a product of many different building phases, with major elements dating from at least the thirteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. Indeed during the later medieval times it seems to have been one of the largest parish churches in Lancashire (South of the Sands), with only the Collegiate church in Manchester (now the Cathedral) and the Priory at Lancaster being larger. S.R. Glynne a noted nineteenth century architectural church commentator visited both the old church and later the new building. On the former he commented that it had been fashioned into a late perpendicular style. He also, stated that whilst it had good features such as its arcade columns, it was generally of a relative coarse quality. He approved of the restoration works, which he said significantly improved the church.

Plan of the Church prior to rebuilding.

From the various descriptions, the old church was clearly very similar in style to the current church, but with differences in window tracery and having a west door. It was also cruder in style, with for example battlements only on the south side. All of this is confirmed by the enclosed sketch and the precise plan drawn by Sharpe and Paley (1840s Architects). These show an identical building footprint, apart from the current vestry. However its interior was apparently very different in appearance with multitudes of private seating, irregular raised galleries and an organ largely blocking the chancel from the nave.

CHURCH / PARISH ORGANISATION

Before discussing the events leading to the rebuilding it is first necessary to describe how the Church and its Parish functioned in the early 1840s. Firstly the whole of Wigan and its surrounding district was still officially a single Parish. It stretched from Upholland / Billinge in the west to Hindley Green in the east. In 1848 its population was nearly 52,000 with about a half living in Wigan itself. Within this Parish were 8 chapels serving the different townships, but all were under the authority of the Rector. Besides the Established Church there were a significant number of Catholic churches (3 in Wigan alone) and a host of Non Conformist chapels.

It is also important to note that until the 1830s the Parish had been the basis of not only religious organisation but had very important civil functions such as the organisation of the poor law and highways etc. Responsibility to carry out these varied roles lay with two Churchwardens aided by Sidesmen representing the different districts. The Rector selected one Warden and the other was elected (alongside the Sidesmen) at the Annual Vestry meeting. These Vestry meetings were open to all land and property owners and they had voting rights. They oversaw the work of these officers and were needed to approve annual funding for the various functions. In Wigan these arrangements were complicated as Wigan Corporation also held powers relating to the populous but relatively small borough boundaries and depending on the topic seems to have sometimes chaired or had representation on the Vestry.

As stated by the 1840s the role of the Vestry had been largely reduced to its religious function, but all its structures including Churchwardens remained. However even until the 1850s certain residual civic duties remained, with for example joint meetings with the Borough over the Moot Hall and with the Poor Law Guardians over the disposal of property related to workhouses etc.

Despite the narrowing of its function the role of the Vestry was still significant in the 1840s and could be highly controversial. This was largely due to its financial powers relating to the Church Rate (also known as the Leys). This was an annual tax on all the land or property owning ratepayers to pay for the upkeep of the Parish Church.

THE FIRST MOVES

In the autumn of 1844, two architects were commissioned to look at the condition of the church. It is reported that both concluded that the foundations had been undermined and the building was structurally unsound. Records from this time emphasise that this was so bad as to require complete new building rather than repair.

Events then seemed to move quite quickly, as James Lindsay 7^th Earl of Balcarres (the more senior title Earl of Crawford only came in 1848) wrote to the Churchwardens on the 12^th December 1844. He made it very clear that he wanted the preservation of the old church and that in his view it should be repaired. He stated that he would use all of his influence to oppose the development of a “modern erection”. According to Bridgeman’s account of 1888 a Vestry meeting was held on the 26^th December in which a report by the Architect Edmund Sharp on the extensive dilapidations of the church was discussed, alongside possible actions.

A further letter from the Earl to the Churchwardens followed in January 1845. In this he expressed a wish to examine “Sharps” report before the next meeting on the 6^th February, otherwise he would move to defer it. He added that this should include full estimates, drawings and sections. Within the letter he also significantly modified his original position. He stated that following discussions with the Rector, they both now wished the church to be placed in the same substantial state of repair and appearance as when the old building was completed in medieval times. Finally he also tackled the issue of subsidence and suggested that investigations be made on the question of coal extraction underneath the church.

The final correspondence to survive is from Edmund Sharp to the Earl dated 5^th February 1845. This principally concerned the division of costs in any restoration between the private chapels and the adjoining church. However he does describe the proposed works as repairs rather than reconstruction, but this is not definitive as the word repair was quite widely used in this time.

These surviving letters are not referred to in any of the existing accounts. They provide fresh evidence from the architect’s initial reports in the autumn of 1844, until decisions were apparently taken at the Vestry meetings in the spring of 1845. Whilst they don’t provide a full picture they are very illuminating.

Firstly they show that the Earl of Balcarres was very active in the debate and he was clearly not shy in putting his views forward. This was important, as by the nature of his title and wealth, he was by far the most important and influential person in the Parish. He was also a very capable man, being the driving force behind his rapidly growing coal and iron business. Besides this he also brought extensive knowledge to this building process, as he was just finishing the rebuilding of Haigh Hall, which he reputedly designed and project managed himself.

Secondly the letters reveal that the Earl had been in discussion with the Rector of Wigan, the Rev Sir George Gunning and they had agreed a way forward based on producing a “better copy” of the existing church. This partnership would have been important in any church rebuilding, but it should be stated that at this time the Rector was no normal parish incumbent. In fact he controlled the large single parish, he had under his control the various chapels, still had the civil status as Lord of the Manor of Wigan, was the nephew of the Earl of Bradford and an annual income of well over £2m per year at today’s values. He was also equally able, guiding through the Wigan Glebe Act 1837 that increased his income by enclosing land and exploiting coal reserves.

Finally the letters confirm that Edmund Sharpe was active on this project from the onset. By the time the project had got under way he had formed a partnership with Edward Paley. In the years following this, it would become one of the most accomplished ecclesiastical architectural firms in the North of England.

CHURCH / PARISH ORGANISATION

THE FIRST MOVES

EVENTS LEADING TO THE STARTING OF THE REBUILDING

The contemporary sources report that several stormy Vestry meetings were held in early spring 1845 over how to respond to these architectural reports. As previously stated there is no surviving detailed reports/minutes of these meetings. However an indication of the strength of the debate can be implied from a Wigan poster in the archives. This outlined an appeal from a “Churchman” to the Ratepayers of Wigan to support the Church Rate levied for repairing the Parish Church. It was dated 11^th February 1845.

Needless to say the Church Rate tax, which was in addition to a number of other local rate (from the Poor Law to Highways) was unpopular. As a result the Vestry meetings that set its level and made financial decisions, could be highly controversial events. They were open to all ratepayers (propertied class only) of the parish. What is probable is that a major increase of an already resented tax (most taxpayers would not have attended the church) beyond the normal annual maintenance rate was being contested.

Eventually in the spring of 1845 approval was given by the Vestry to certain works specified by Edmund Sharpe. It also voted to raise a very modest £3000 from the church rates to allow them to commence. The type of work envisaged was not recorded, but given the amount, it is likely to have been for major repairs rather than a rebuilding.

Events then took a very surprising direction. Shortly after the meeting, the Churchwardens decided to set aside the Vestry meeting decision and did not implement the tax. Instead they sought to raise monies via voluntary public subscription, gaining a sum of £3500 in a matter of weeks. The 1851 Churchwardens Report produced some six years later, explained this decision by stating that the Churchwardens merely wanted to reduce the burden on the hard-pressed ratepayers. Whilst this seems laudable, at the same time they instructed Sharp and Paley to make drawings and specifications for the purpose of totally rebuilding the Chancel, the adjacent Earls Chapel and the Legh Chapel then used as a clergy vestry. These works didn’t include the main body of the Church.

Two key points seem to explain this action. Firstly it was around this time (traditionally a week after Easter) that the Rector replaced Henry Woodcock a young wealthy banker as his Churchwarden. He chose instead the Hon Colin Lindsay who was a prominent lay member of wider Church of England Societies. More importantly, he was the younger son of the Earl of Balcarres. It is worth noting again that of the two Churchwarden positions, the Rector nominated one, with the other being elected by all the ratepayers at the Annual Vestry meeting. Hence the electorate for this role was effectively the wider propertied class and not those who just attended church. In 1845 this position was held by Thomas Tebay an enterprising agent who developed and ran estates / coal businesses of Meyrick Bankes of Winstanley Hall.

The second key point was the work specified by the Wardens did not now need the financial approval of the Vestry meeting. This was because the upkeep of the Chancel was the total responsibility of the Rector and the adjacent Balcarres Chapel was owned / maintained by the Earl of Balcarres. The only part of the church which potentially needed to be funded by parishioners / ratepayers was the old Legh Chapel area adjacent to the chancel. Given this was now to be funded by public subscription it would not need the Vestry funding nor approval.

These moves could have been innocent and taken to protect the ratepayer as portrayed in the Churchwardens Report. However the arguments simply don’t seem to add up. For example it is not logical that following a number of controversial meetings, that the Vestry would have given approval to spend ratepayers monies totalling £3000 to merely replace a small chapel used by the clergy to prepare for services. Hence this seems to confirm that the original Vestry meeting decision was intended to largely repair rather than rebuild the main body of the church. The probable motivation being to minimise the costs to ratepayers, rather than any wish to preserve the old building.

Given the Earl’s and Rector’s apparent wider and grander aims as outlined in the surviving correspondence, the Vestry decision would have probably been seen as a defeat or at least a setback. So from the facts available, it seems very likely that they effectively bypassed the Vestry by getting the Churchwardens to provide the Architects with a totally new brief to proceed on their preferred course for those parts under their control and which they would largely pay for. Namely totally rebuilding these parts of the church they were responsible for in a similar style to the previous building.

WORKS BEGIN 1845

The works to pull down the old Chancel, Balcarres and Legh Chapels started in the autumn of 1845. It must have been at this early stage that the decision to retain the substantial rood turrets (between the nave and the chancel) and the adjacent massive tower was taken. It seems ironic that these retained structures were the remains of the oldest parts of the old church, dating from the thirteenth century. This was presumably because these very substantial features had not subsided and also for cost reasons. These works then took almost 2 years to complete before they were re-consecrated on All Saints day in 1847.

The Church Wardens Report of 1851 explains that during this portion of the work, it was discovered that the church had not been undermined by coalmining. The actual cause was the number and extent of burials adjacent to pillars and walls. The report also states that it was this discovery that finally persuaded a Vestry meeting in late 1847 to proceed with the demolition and rebuilding of much of the rest of the church. This explanation is in line the Topological Dictionary of England (1848) that stated “about the similar time (to the re-consecration in November 1847) a Vestry meeting was held at which it was resolved to restore or rebuild the body of the edifice, as the different portions might require: the cost of the works as to the estimates of Sharp and Paley Lancaster will amount to £4410”.

At first reading all of this seems surprising as the sums quoted were totally inadequate for the task of rebuilding the majority of the church and secondly where had all the previous determined opposition from the Vestry meeting disappeared to? There are two possible scenarios. Firstly it may have been that ratepayers had been convinced of the merits of the work and had been hoodwinked into acceptance, based on a gross underestimate of costs. There are some contempory comments about some “difficulties” faced by the church in 1848 which might relate to this situation. However an alternative and slightly more logical explanation is that the £4410 figure quoted was the net cost of the additional works after taking account of the voluntary donations received. This scenario is supported by the amount quoted being very similar to the large loan that was obtained from the Commissioners of Public Works (effectively the Government), which was secured against future church rate income to be paid over 20 years at 4% interest. Whilst the date of the loan is not reported it would seem likely that this was agreed at this time and it enabled the works to proceed as it didn’t involve major annual increases in the church rate. Indeed the Churchwardens report 1851 goes out of its way to say that the decision to obtain this loan achieved the unanimous support of the Vestry meeting and the Board of Guardians (Body overseeing the Poor law)

In any event, the second phase of works commenced very quickly in January 1848, with the demolition of the main body of the church. It used all the same contractors as the earlier works and could be regarded as a continuation of the project. It then took until 1850 before it was completed. During the works again the Tower and Rood Turrets were retained along with a portion of the North Aisle and Chapel. The latter was presumably because the owners of the chapel the Walmsleys of Ince were not prepared to contribute to the rebuilding. This is not surprising as they were noted Roman Catholic family who were partly responsible for funding St Mary’s RC Church in Standishgate some years before. The rebuilt Church was consecrated by the Bishop of Chester with great celebration on the 3^rd of August 1850 with a congregation of 2000 and much self-congratulation.

Considerable detail is known about the work from the various reports. For example it was the first major task of the young architect Edward Paley (aged 23) who took on most of the responsibilities and whose partnership was paid £640 over the period of the works. We know the overall cost was £15,065 and a detailed breakdown is contained within the 1851 Report. The Earl paid £1059 for his Chapel and the Rector paid £1184 for the Chancel. As at 1851 £5576 had been raised by voluntary donation, £1033 saved from the normal annual Church Rates (1845 to 1850) and £4540 was borrowed from the Commissioners of Public Works. Within the 1851 Report the Churchwardens seemed confident about covering the shortfall of £1591 via further fund raising.

All contributors to the voluntary donations are listed in the 1851 report with donations coming from over 500 individuals. However the largest came from different members of the Earls family (£1000+), the Kenyon’s of Swinley (£1000) and the Woodcocks of Wigan Bank (£560). Significant amounts also came from a wide range of local industrialists such as the Eckersley’s (£170), local landowners such as Leigh- Pembertons {£100} and politicians including MPs and ex Mayors),

The main contractors for both phases of work were Harrisons of Blackburn supported by local firms. The external elevations were faced with sandstone from Longridge, but within the walls themselves much of the old stone was reused. Also the main arcade columns whilst taken down, were reassembled in the same pattern using the original stone. Most of the nave roof was found to be sound and reused. There are also hints to why the windows tracery was changed, with the belief that the original Lancashire simple uncusped style (still found in the Walmsley Chapel) had at some point replaced the original medieval style. Hence they thought they were returning the windows back to how they were originally built. We now know this was totally mistaken.

From the accounts it is also apparent that a major part of the cost was used in beautifying the interior with elaborate high cost fittings. For example £1061 was spent on the organ, £403 for the Baptistery, £250 on fine Minton tiles, £350 on French Caen stone for the pulpit and reredos and £875 on two stained glass windows etc. Much of this was spent using notable designers /craftsmen of their day such as Carpenter and Thomas of London and Gibbs of Oxford. Also included in the cost were additions to the church plate (£144), the carved pew for the Mayor (£62) and a new eagle lectern (£92). Therefore in this second phase of work cost constraints seem to have been forgotten. Within the rebuilding there were reports of older stones being found relating to earlier buildings, including a Norman arch. What are certainly true are the discovery in the Chancel of an alleged Roman altar and the discovery of a carved medieval prior or priest.

Finally the rebuilding of the church didn’t signal the end of works. In 1861 the tower was raised in height to a design by Edward Paley to accommodate a clock room, with the aim of allowing the clock to be seen clearly in the Market Place. The cost estimate for this was a further £1000.

WHAT DOES THIS SHOW

Even with the wealth of information available, we still don’t have all the details on what occurred from 1844-50. This is because the many intentions, motivations and actions of the key people/groups involved are not fully recorded. It is also apparent that the contempory sources look to portray a certain perspective on the project. The Churchwardens Financial Report of 1851 is a particularly good example of this as it provides critical information, but clearly plays down some key events and is very “defensive” in tone to questions of cost and expenditure.

However despite these limitations, this note demonstrates that the reality was clearly more complicated and controversial than the story portrayed in the current guides. So what can we conclude?

Firstly the condition of the church in 1844 was obviously poor, but it is very likely that it could have been repaired. Indeed a further published Poster claimed in 1854 that the old church could have been repaired for a fraction of what the new building cost and that this had been the real wish of the ratepayers of the parish.

Secondly whilst the evidence is only based on an early letter from the Earl of Balcarres, it is likely that the architects did initially propose a totally new building to a new design. It should be appreciated that the existing Perpendicular style was not popular in the 1840s, with copies of earlier medieval styles far more in vogue and fashionable. Indeed Edmund Sharpe’s expertise at this time was in the earlier Norman or Early English style. What is clear is this option was dropped very quickly in the face of opposition from the Earl, Rector and the ratepayers.

Thirdly the evidence shows that the key to the decision to rebuild the church as a better copy of the old one was not taken by the parishioners, the ratepayers or the previously celebrated Hon Colin Lindsay. In fact two of the most powerful men of the parish, namely the Earl of Balcarres and the Rector decided on this aim at a very early stage. This is shown clearly in the letter dated January 1844, which set out to the Churchwardens their thinking. As they didn’t fully finance this aim, they had to be flexible and patient in their response to events. This is shown when they faced resistance from the early Vestry meetings almost certainly over costs. They then decided to proceed with the works they were largely responsible for and raised further needed monies via public subscription. This rebuilding work to the Chancel, the Balcarres Chapel and the Legh Chapel as a better copy of the original starting nearly three years before rebuilding of the main body of the church was finally agreed.

The other interesting aspect of this saga was that despite the Earls and the Rectors clear importance, they faced this significant opposition, which initially triumphed at the early Vestry meetings. However this was not the traditionally imagined revolt by parishioners or worshippers, who were sentimental about the old building. It actually seems to have come from ratepayers who would have been forced to pay significantly more for a new church building. Given the nature of politics at the time, some of these would have been Liberals who generally opposed church influence. Indeed even if you were Anglican, but worshipped at one of the chapels of ease such as Billinge or Hindley, why would you want to pay for the rebuilding of a church in Wigan when you had your own building expenses. Also others were Catholics or Nonconformist who funded their places of worship themselves. The former were also growing in influence with the formation of the local Catholic Association in 1824 and whose numbers were growing via Irish immigration.

From all this information finance therefore seems to have been the key issue in this whole endeavour. This is best shown by the final approval of the Vestry to proceed with the rebuilding coming late and very likely with the arrangement of a government loan that lessened the immediate burden on ratepayers. It represented nearly a third of the cost of the church, with most of the remainder paid for via voluntary subscription or private sources.

It is a shame that the absence of detailed records means that we cannot follow these debates at the Vestry meetings more precisely. However a newspaper The Wigan Times covered the Annual Vestry Meeting of 1851. The report confirms the controversies within the Vestry meetings, with it being described as being very stormy and well attended. Indeed the meeting opened in the actual Vestry area of the church and reconvened in the Town Hall due to overcrowding and fears over the spread of cholera (an echo to Covid). During the meeting there were sharp exchanges over irregularities in the election of Churchwardens in previous years, the lack of clear accounts, the lack of the promised committee oversight of the rebuilding, questions over the re assigning of pews and the continued spending on the churchyard. Two individuals named Hilton and Latham arguing heatedly with the Churchwardens (one of which was also the Mayor) who were supported by Nathaniel Eckersley (very prominent industrialist / banker who was Mayor from 1852 later MP) and the Clerk to the Vestry Henry Ackerley a very prominent local lawyer. What is also of interest is how business was conducted in these times, with the Clerk to the Vestry using his own legal practice to arrange the £4540 loan for the rebuilding and charging the church £81 10 0 for the work.

This resentment of the church rates was also expressed by continued arguments about its use in improving the churchyard in the 1850s. Also when examining the Church Rate books for 1848 it is clear that collection of the tax was partial and it seems that only the better off were targeted and paid. Whole district’s liable for small amounts seemed to have been ignored. All of this evidence tends to confirm that finance and the imposition of an increased tax on residents was a critical issue in all of these events.

It is also interesting to note what subsequently occurred with the mortgage payments to the Commissioners loan. Apparently these were only paid until 1853. After this date, due to an Act of Parliament the legal status of the chapels in the Parish was strengthened and they were formed into their own Ecclesiastical Districts. This caused Churchwardens of these chapels to act more independently and to dispute the need to fund the rebuilding of the “mother church”. The Churchwardens of the Parish Church reacted by offering to pay only a portion of the mortgage payments to reflect this change, but the Commissioners refused this offer. It became a source of conflict, but with the national abolition of Church Rates in 1867 the Commissioners eventually took legal action. This eventually resulted in a Court ruling in favour of the Churchwardens (i.e. the Church) in 1873. This made the decision to take out a government loan set against future rates income fortuitous as the vast majority was never paid back.

The other interest is in the role of the Hon Colin Lindsay who is singled out as being the main driving force behind the rebuilding in the established narrative. The evidence shows that he didn’t seem to play a central role in the initial decisions. However he was made the Rectors Warden at a critical time and his social cache seems to have been important in fund raising. For example he personally collected more of the donations than all the other church officers combined.

His role also needs to be understood against his religious beliefs. He was a very early Tractarian, was the Rectors Warden for 10 years and devoted immense energy to this and wider responsibilities as President of the Manchester Church Society (later President of the English Church Union). It is clear that his most obvious legacy was the early recasting of the church interior along Oxford movement principles. This entailed moving churches back to a more medieval “catholic” arrangement with high altars, choir stalls in the chancel, moving the organ, more religious stained glass, uniform seating etc. All this seems usual in churches today but this more sacramental form of liturgy was absolutely revolutionary in the Anglican Church in the 1840s. He must have had the Rectors support, but these changes would have also been in keeping with the wider aim of recreating the church as it was built and supposedly set out in Pre Reformation times. His legacy, though further enhanced is still intact in today’s interior. It is ironic that well after he left Wigan, he became a Roman Catholic in 1868.

It is also worth mentioning that the Consecration Report of 1850 goes out of its way to equally praise the efforts of Ralph Darlington (second Churchwarden from 1848 to 1852) alongside Colin Lindsay in the enterprise. This could have been out of politeness, but given the wider achievements of Ralph Darlington I doubt this. Indeed in a report in the Wigan Times (April 1851) about the election of Churchwardens, Hon Colin Lindsey goes out of his way to praise him. He stated that when he was first elected the church faced a difficult position, which he helped solve. He was from a relatively modest background who was at this time a leading lawyer in the town, was also the serving Mayor of Wigan and Chief Magistrate, all at the age of 25. Later he served two further terms as Churchwarden, was Chairman of the Board of Guardians, was the Coroner of Wigan, became Town Clerk and played a major role in the establishment of Mesnes Park and Wigan Infirmary.

A final point concerns the timing of the rebuilding works. These were a period of great change with Wigan’s rapidly expanding industrial economy based on cotton and coal and with a transport system transformed by canals and railways. This was accompanied by massive population growth including major immigration. Whilst political change was occurring with the Great Reform Act widening representation and attempted improvements in living conditions, real progress was slow. Indeed the whole of industrial Lancashire could be said to have been the centre of political agitation led by the Chartist movement. Wigan was no exception with a major Chartists meeting in 1838, major strikes in 1842 and 1843, a trade depression that caused major hardship in 1847/8 and infamous riots in the Market Place in 1853.

Against this dramatic background, it seems surprising that the whole of this populous district was still organised as a single ancient Parish, the Rector was still Lord of the Manor and Vestry meetings still held sway with the right to impose taxes. Also in such turbulent times it is surprising that many key landowners, industrialists and residents were concerned with and active in the rebuilding proposals of a church. It is also very noticeable that the names of Churchwardens and other church officers were almost interchangeable with those of the Borough Council and the Board of Guardians. Indeed Thomas Byrom, Henry Woodcock and the already mentioned Ralph Darlington who served as Churchwardens over this rebuilding period were also serving Mayors of Wigan or would do in the future. Another close connection was with the various Partners of the Wigan Bank who donated the highest amounts from within the business community. Indeed this was on going with four partners serving a combined total of 42 years as Churchwarden in the years that followed. Hence this church was the establishment at prayer.

Indeed from contemporary sources we know that wealthy Wigan society was at this time highly conservative in nature and worried about the consequences of progress. It could therefore be argued that the rebuilding and reordering of the church reflected this. It was motivated by trying to put the church back to how it existed centuries before, rather than producing something new to fit in with future demands.

As a postscript the ancient Parish of Wigan was broken up into separate parishes from 1864 on the resignation of Rector Gunning. By the end of the nineteenth century it consisted of no less than 26 separate parish churches, all serving the rapidly expanding population of the district. During this time the Rectors income grew even more with the developing economy and from a further Glebe Act (1871). However from now on these resources were increasingly used to support the expansion of the church by paying for the additional clergy stipends, in the role of establishing schools and supporting local charities especially in establishing Wigan Infirmary / poverty relief.

Peter Layland BA PhD

References

GTO Bridgeman 1888 History of the Church and Manor of Wigan.

Rev J Colling 1966 The Parish Church of All Saints Wigan.

Consecration of Wigan Parish Church Saturday August 3^rd 1850.

Crawford Muniments (Documents relating to Wigan Parish Church) ; National Library of Scotland.

Report of the Churchwardens. 1851 Rebuilding and Restoration of the Parish Church of All Saints Wigan:

S R Glynne 1893 Notes on the Churches of Lancashire number 59 Chetham Society.

J Hannavy 2003 History & Guide :Wigan.

PJ Layland 2020 Some Notes on the Historical Development of Wigan Parish Church (unpublished)

S Lewis (ed)1848 A Topological Dictionary of England.

R Pollard &N Pevsner Buildings of England Lancashire, Liverpool and South West.

Ed F R Raines Notita Cestriensis Vol 2 Chetham Society 1850.

W J True 1901 A Ramble Round Wigan Parish. Link

Wigan Archives: Various miscellaneous records relating to Posters and a Notice of a Public Meeting relating to Church Rates 1845 - 1854 Church Rate Book 1848. The Wigan Times 1850-1852

Comments