In Poor Condition – Dilapidation the Reverend Benjamin Clay Era and Consequences
This story does not offer a detailed historical account of the condition of the Rectory during the Clay era nor identifies the exact role of Benjamin Clay as the Rector, in his approach to property maintenance and its apparent decline during his tenure.
The aim of this story is to provide information that helps understanding of national context about dilapidation of Church Properties and identify specific information and events relevant to East Worlington to encourage debate, create hypothesis that may generate further investigation, and pose questions rather than draw conclusions.
Why is this a Story of Interest
East Worlington Rectory holds many stories of interest and intrigue; non-least was the story of Reverend Benjamin Clay M.A. and the case that emerged following his death by the successor incumbent Richard Syndercombe Bryan B.A. who, through a legal process was making a claim against the estate of Benjamin Clay.
It emerged that at the time of his death (1851) Benjamin Clay had left a messuage (A house together with its land and outbuildings) and a chancel, and the walls and fences associated with the gardens and glebe land, which were in poor and dilapidated condition and should have been repaired and maintained by Clay during his lifetime. This was a significant issue at the time because when a Rector died and left the Rectory on poor condition the incumbent Rector was left with the cost of repairs.
The intriguing aspect of this story is trying to find any information that explains the role of Benjamin Clay in allowing his property responsibility fall into poor condition.
To provide a context for the story here are some definitions and explanations
Defining Dilapidation
Dilapidation refers to a state of disrepair, ruin, or decay in a building, often resulting from neglect or poor maintenance. In property law, it specifically denotes breaches of lease covenants where tenants fail to maintain or repair premises, leading to financial claims by landlords to restore the property to its original condition.
Defining Ecclesiastical Dilapidation
Ecclesiastical dilapidations refer to the legal obligation of Church of England clergy (incumbents) to maintain, repair, and keep in good condition the property belonging to their benefice, such as parsonage houses, chancels, and related buildings. It describes both the state of disrepair (waste) and the financial liability imposed on the incumbent or their estate for failing to keep these buildings in proper repair. Dilapidation in church buildings became a widespread, chronic problem starting in the mid-16th century following the Reformation, and reached a critical crisis point by the mid-19th century due to centuries of neglect, changing demographics, and structural failures.
Some of the Reasons for Dilapidation of Ecclesiastical Buildings
A significant factor in understanding why Ecclesiastical Buildings were vulnerable to dilapidation was the financial hardship for Clergy.
The majority of Rectories had been built and provided by the Lord of the Manor / Patron / Founders, to offer accommodation for the parish Rector, his family and live-in employees, however the maintenance of the Rectories were often not supported by the Founders. This left the Rectors to organise and fund any necessary maintenance and repairs themselves and several factors influenced how this was approached in each parish, including
- each Rector’s financial capacity (their own wealth and income) to pay for this work;
- the priority the Rector gave to this work, when compared to other financial demands;
- the social context for each Rector, including size of family and priorities for the family ranging from ‘food on the table’ through to achieving aspiration for the education of their children;
- the age, building materials, quality of initial construction, and location of buildings, which likely had an impact on their state of dilapidation and influence the needs for repair;
- the wealth of the parish and therefore the income for Rectors from, for example Tithes and Glebelands;
- and the lack of motivation to see the Rectory as an investment and a heirloom for future generation of the family, as the they didn’t own the property.
In the early part of the C19th the responsibility for the maintenance of ecclesiastical properties did exists under a legal framework however it did not in most cases encourage Rectors to comply with the laws that did exist nor see the punishments as a deterrent. The main enforcement of repairs to parsonage houses, chancels, and other ecclesiastical buildings was largely governed by ecclesiastical law (canon law) and custom, rather than a unified statutory framework. Implementation of enforcement tended to be inconsistently applied, generally ineffective and lacked professional rigor with no standardisation of inspectors and no officially commissioned and appointment diocesan surveyors.
These contextual factors did have major consequences of disparity of the quality of Rectories in different parishes across the country.
The Consequence of these Factors
This situation resulted in some properties in very poor condition, with some buildings decaying so significantly that the only outcome was to either let them naturally decay to rubble or be demolished thereby limiting the number of parishes with resident Rectors This resulted in some parishes not having a parish specific Rector and what was often the cash for a Recor have responsibility for more than one parish.
Another consequence of parishes without resident Rectors or Rectors whose priorities were extended to more than one parish, was that the influence of the Church in some parishes was significantly reduced and this created much concern by Church leaders and in some cases political leaders who on the one hand had a mission of promoting Christianity, and on the other the church provided parishes with a moral context which demonstrated the churches, beliefs about right and wrong which was seen as important in maintaining community order.
When Rectories were in poor condition but retained as a dwelling for the Rector, this often resulted the inhabitants living in poor, often unhealthy, conditions. This was undesirable and had a real impact on the recruitment and retention of Rectors and therefore the services offered by the Church in some parishes. This was unacceptable to the Ecclesiastical hierarchic, many politicians, the public and of course the Rectors themselves.
The impact of dilapidation was maybe the consequence that achieved the most publicity and dissatisfaction and this situation was created when Rectors, who had not maintained their properties, died, leaving the property in a dilapidated state and with the incumbent, new Rectory, with the expense of paying for the necessary repairs that were not of their making but became a major financial burden for them.
This led to the creation of legislation.
The Ecclesiastical Dilapidation Act 1871
This Act was established to reform the management of repair liabilities for Church of England benefice buildings, replacing a system of uncertainty with an official, standardized, and regularized process. The main object was to protect the families of deceased clergy from heavy, sudden financial charges for repairs, ensuring instead that buildings were maintained consistently during an incumbent’s life.
The main features of the Act:
Appointment of Official Surveyors: In each diocese, one or more surveyors of ecclesiastical dilapidations were appointed by archdeacons and rural deans, subject to the approval of the bishop. These surveyors were paid via a fixed rate of charges rather than a set salary.
Mandatory Inspections: The Act required that the diocesan surveyor inspect the buildings of a benefice—including the parsonage house, chancel, walls, and fences—at specific times:
- When the benefice becomes vacant.
- When the benefice is under sequestration.
- Upon the request of the incumbent.
- Upon complaint by the archdeacon, rural dean, or patron.
Detailed Survey Reports: Surveyors were required to issue a report listing the specific works needed and an estimate of the costs.
Protection for Incumbents (Certificates of Exemption): Once repairs were completed to the satisfaction of the surveyor, a certificate could be issued. This certificate protected the incumbent from further inspections and liability for repairs for the next five years.
Role of Queen Anne’s Bounty: The Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty were authorized to manage the funds, pay for repairs on certificate, and, importantly, make loans to incumbents for repairs, which were then repaid over a set period.
Definition of Liability: The Act applied to all buildings that the incumbent was legally bound to maintain, including houses of residence, chancels, walls, and fences.
Compulsory Insurance: Incumbents were required to insure the buildings of their benefice for at least three-fifths of their value with an approved insurance company, in the joint names of themselves and Queen Anne’s Bounty.
How This Applied to the Parish of East Worlington During the Clay Years 1796 to 1851.
We know that Benjamin Clay was appointed Rector of East Worlington in 1796 his Parton being, the Hon. Newton Fellowes. Second Earl of Portsmouth.
It has not been possible to identify any information about the condition of the property at the time of his appointment.
To structure this story a number of factors have been identified that may have explained how Benjamin Clay managed the property, and anything that may have influenced him.
Wealth of the Parish
One factor that may be assumed is that the wealth of the parish is likely to have had an impact on the finances available for the Rector, and by this suggesting that there may be a correlation between the relative financial capacity and the condition of the properties, implying dilapidation is more likely to be prevalent in poorer parishes.
The only reference to the value of the Rectory and its condition was found in White’s Directory of Devonshire in 1850 and the entry for East Worlington implied a well-maintained residence stating ‘The rectory, valued in K.B. at £7. 15s. 10d., and in 1831 at £238, is in the patronage of the Hon. Newton Fellowes, and incumbency of the Rev. Benj. Clay, M.A., who has a neat, thatched residence, and 66½A. of Glebe.’
Some contextual information to offer a comparison
Historical comparing East Worlington to the financial value of Eclectically property in parishes nationally in 1535 East Worlington was technically considered a “small” living (valued under £10 in the King’s Book), but by 1831, it had become a respectable benefice yielding £238 a year, indicating significant growth in wealth over 300 years.
Average Size Context: While many Glebes were small plots of a few acres intended for a horse or cow, a Glebe of over 60 acres represented a significant agricultural holding, sometimes referred to as a “Glebe Farm”.
Comparison to Typical Livings: Many historic Glebes were quite small. For example, a 1845 survey in a “World Wide Words” report mentions a glebe of only 1¼ acres, making 66.5 acres a very substantial amount in comparison.
Income Potential: A Glebe of this size, if in a good area, would allow the incumbent to let it out to tenant farmers, providing a significant source of rental income in addition to any tithes the priest might receive.
Contextual Example: In one 1840 example, a Rector had 33 acres of Glebe plus 37 acres of “roads and waste,” totalling around 70 acres, which was considered part of a prosperous living.
Therefore, 66.5 acres is not a small, subsistence-level plot, but a significant property, typical of a well-endowed benefice. This does not correlate with the hypothesis that dilapidation and parish wealth are intertwined.
This does not suggest that East Worlington was a poor parish and therefore challenges an assumption that dilapidation and poverty are intrinsically linked.
So moving on with testing possible factors on the dilapidation of the property, as defined in 1851,
Was the Rector Benjamin Clay himself a Factor influencing Dilapidation?
Income a factor?
Like most Rectors in most parishes Reverend Clay had two main sources of income, namely annual Tithe payments and income from Glebeland. For most of his tenure as Rector, the Tithe payment was made on an in-kind basis, meaning that crops and produce were used by parishioners to pay the Tithe tax to the Rector. While it is possible to understand that such payments supported him and his family it did not offer financial income, which is more likely to have been needed to pay for repairs and maintenance. During the Clay era the law changed with regard to Tithe payments with the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 required the payment to be calculatedin financial terms and requiring the payments to be made in money.
The transition from one system clearly created issues for Clay. The process of transition required a survey of parishes and a voluntary agreement between the stakeholders, namely the parishioners, the landowner and the Rector. If the stakeholders failed to agree there was the right of appeal to Commissioners that were established by the government. In East Worlington the voluntary process did not secure an agreement, and the case of East Worlington was heard by Commissioners during November 1838 in response the appeal by Clay. While his motives for appeal were not explicitly expressed the fact that he appealed may have been an indicator of a need to secure the highest possible income.
In Devon the Tithe map and apportionment dates to 1841 so it is possible Clay had approximately 10 years under these arrangements before his death in 1851.
Was Clay competent in financial matters?
There is no evidence to clarify what kind of business manager Clay was and how prudent he was with his expenditures however the shift from in-kind tithe payments to monetary tithe payments would have made demand on Clay he probably hadn’t experienced before and by 1841 he was 75 years old. It can only be surmised that this may have been a contributing factor to any lack of focus on repairs and maintenance which ultimately led to the Dilapidation claim by his successor, Bryan. This issue about Clay’s financial competency may also be challenged by the issue raised about his need to borrow money and he had debts.
Debtors
As part of the evidence at the legal case brought by Bryan evidence came to light that Clay during his time as a Rector had needed to borrow money. At the time of his death Clay had 41 named debtors.
These debts had been paid by the Executor of Clay’s estate as a priority, and this had resulted in there been no funds to cover the dilapidation expenses. This could suggest that Clay had expenses above his means or that his financial acumen was limited.
Was his age a factor?
Clay had held the position of Rector for 55 years and on his death, he was 88 years old. Therefore in the latter stages of his tenure, he would have been an aging man and while not making unsubstantiated claims that the aging effects on Clay it may be possible to consider this as a factor that contributed to an overall decline in the property.
Family Size
Certainly he had a number of children and employed a number of servants as shown in the Census of 1841 Benjamin (aged 75) lived at East Worlington Rectory along with Edward Clay who was 40 years old and a Solicitor, Lenetta Clay (35), Jane Boundy (40), Ann Churchill (22), Mary Govier (18), Ann Harper (21), Thirza Harper (19), and Mary Selly (13) meaning that in this year nine people were residents. In 1851 Benjamin (aged 87) was still living in the Rectory and in that census year there were six residents. This does indicate that whether his children, his employees or the people he helped he had a large household that would have made demands on his income.
What kind of Rector was Clay and did that have an influence?
It does appear through various press cuttings that as far as the partitioners were concerned Clay was viewed as a Rector that showed kindness. This does not equate to the dilapidation of the property but can imply something of the character of the man.
Exeter Flying Post 01 Jauary1846 – Christmas Lunch – a kind man
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette 14 August 1847 – The Worlington Revel 1847 – Revel Party
Dilapidation continued into 1870’s
Church
What we do know is that the issues of dilapidation continued in the parish and the church was rebuilt in 1879 by the Earl of Portsmouth after falling into disrepair.
School house formally Church house
Prior to this formal building, the Earl supported a National School established by 1857, which originally operated from the upper floor of the Church House.
The Primary School
In 1874, the Earl of Portsmouth presented a deed of gift for the new school and schoolhouse to the newly formed School Board
The Challenge
This is a story that deserves further investigation and is left as such as a challenge.