^{page 279 note 1} Geographical Journal, XLIX(1917), 124 ff.Google Scholar; Fawcett, C. B., The Provinces of England, London 1919Google Scholar. The present author wishes to acknowledge the kind cooperation of the owners and custodians of the archives referred to below, and most particularly of the Church Commissioners, in making their papers available; as a librarian, he is also grateful both to successive superiors who have granted indulgent dispensations to enable him to read, and to patient colleagues who have fetched, carried and answered. Any errors are his responsibility.

^{page 279 note 2} Cf. Taylor, G., Geography in the Twentieth Century, London 1960, 354–69.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} Freeman, T. W. (The Geographer's Craft, Manchester 1967, 44–71) discusses Vidal de la Blache at some length.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} W. Marshall, Rural Economy of the West of England, London 1796, i. 1–5. He did not follow this principle rigidly in all his writings however.

^{page 280 note 2} Blache, P. Vidal de la, ‘Des Charactères distinctifs de la Géographie’, Annales de Géographie, XXII (1913), 299. His context, of course, was not the same as that of the present paper.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 3} Curzon, Lord, Frontiers; Romanes Lecture, Oxford 1907.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} These and other statistics have been gathered together by the present author in his unpublished thesis, ‘New Anglican Bishoprics, 1836–1919’ (London, M.A., 1965Google Scholar). The principal statistical sources, being well known and readily available, do not require further comment.

^{page 281 note 2} Jackman, W. T., Development of Transportation, Cambridge 1916Google Scholar, i. 339 and appendix V; Hart, H. W., ‘Some Notes on Coach Travel’, Journal of Transport History, IV (1959–1960), 149Google Scholar.

^{page 282 note 1} Cf. McManners, J., French Ecclesiastical Society under the Ancien Régime, Manchester 1960Google Scholar, 261.

^{page 283 note 1} Henley, Lord, Plan of Church Reform, priv. prin. 1832Google Scholar; Plan for a New Arrangement of the Dioceses, London 1834Google Scholar.

^{page 283 note 2} Peel, R., Memoirs, London 1856–1857Google Scholar, ii. 72–3.

^{page 283 note 3} Ibid., ii. 83–4.

^{page 283 note 4} Exeter Cathedral Library, MS. ED/11/49: Peel to Phillpotts, 21 January 1835Google Scholar.

^{page 283 note 6} Church Commissioners (hereafter referred to as Ch. Comm.), vol. 112.02, part 5, ‘General Suggestions of the Bishop of Exeter’.

^{page 284 note 1} Royal Commission on the Established Church, First Report, London 1835Google Scholar, 3–4; cf. 26/7 Viet. c. 36 (1863). The Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Commission noted in its minutes that the diocese of London might be coextensive with the area under the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, a bizarre commentary on crime, sin, punishment and redemption: op. cit., 51.

^{page 284 note 2} Morrish, P. S., ‘The Manchester Clause’, The Church Quarterly, I (1968–1969), 319–26Google Scholar.

^{page 284 note 3} Ch. Comm., Minute Book of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Commission, 38–42, 45–6 49. 51 and 131.

^{page 285 note 1} Ch. Comm., 112.02, part I, 62–6.

^{page 285 note 2} Royal Commission on the Established Church, Third Report, London 1836Google Scholar, 1–4; cf. Established Church Act, 6/7 Will, iv c. 77 (1836). The union was dissolved by further legislation in 1884.

^{page 285 note 3} Ch. Comm., file 7958/i, Minutes of Evidence, 3 July 1837.

^{page 285 note 4} Cf. Guardian, 5 August 1846, 231–2.

^{page 286 note 1} P.R.O., Home Office 73/70, Minute Book of Russell's advisory committee, fol. 21.

^{page 286 note 2} Royal Commission on Cathedral Churches, Third Report, London 1855Google Scholar, xliii.

^{page 286 note 3} Chronicle of Canterbury Convocation (hereafter cited as CCC), 1865Google Scholar, 1837 ff. and 2262 ff.

^{page 286 note 4} Hansard, 3rd series, xciv. 373.

^{page 286 note 5} Scott, G. G., Additional Cathedrals, London 1854Google Scholar.

^{page 286 note 6} Church Congress, Report (hereafter cited as CCR.), 1864Google Scholar, 16.

^{page 286 note 7} CCR., 1865, 94–5 and 179.

^{page 287 note 1} CCR., 1861, 70–3; CCC, 1865, 1841–2. The project for a Cornish diocese involved transforming the archdeaconry of Cornwall into a diocese, but since the county and the archdeaconry coincided (except for a few parishes along the river Tamar) it was to have been essentially a county diocese. The debate dragged on for several decades before the diocese was obtained in 1876 and the arguments became tediously repetitive. The sources are extensive: important amongst the archival material is Ch. Comm. file 1837, which contains much material prior to the actual endowment and foundation of the bishopric; amongst the printed material, the following well illustrate the arguments for the diocese: Phillpotts, H., Charge … Diocese of Exeter, 2nd ed., London 1836Google Scholar, 27; Phillpotts, H., Charge … Diocese of Exeter, London 1842Google Scholar, 80–3; The West Briton, 6 October 1854Google Scholar, 6; Royal Commission on Cathedral Churches, Second report, London 1855Google Scholar,;iii; A Cornish Bishopric: a Statement of Facts, Bodmin 1859Google Scholar; Hobhouse, R., The Cornish Bishopric, Bodmin 1860Google Scholar; Guardian, 23 May 1860Google Scholar, 456; Royal Cornwall Gazette, 11 May 1860Google Scholar, 5; CCC, 1865, 1837–45; Lach-Szyrma, W. S., The Bishopric of Cornwall, London 1869Google Scholar; Hansard, 3rd series, ccxxii. 730–3.

^{page 287 note 2} CCR., 1873Google Scholar, 260.

^{page 287 note 3} Hansard, 3rd series, ccxxiv. 1885Google Scholar.

^{page 287 note 4} Church Quarterly Review, III (1876), 209.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 5} Tracts for the Times, London 1834Google Scholar, i. Tract xxxiii. Having compared the small dioceses of the early church with some of the more extensive and populous ones in England in the 1830s, he sarcastically concluded: ‘it is not here intended to insinuate the necessity of any immediate measure of multiplying the English sees or appointing suffragans … but to show that the genius of our ecclesiastical system tends towards such an increase’: Ibid., 6–7.

^{page 288 note 1} Pusey, E. B., Remarks on Cathedral Institutions, London 1833Google Scholar, 118.

^{page 288 note 2} Arnold, T., Principles of Church Reform, London 1833Google Scholar, 48–9.

^{page 288 note 3} Wordsworth, C., On the Proposed Subdivision of Dioceses, London 1860Google Scholar, 9–10. Numerous other pamphleteers and speakers looked to the early Church as a model in this connexion: e.g., Palmer, W., A Renewed Enquiry, London 1848Google Scholar, 15–16; The Churchman's Magazine, October 1857Google Scholar, 193; CCR., 1861, 70; Dumbleton, E. N., Increase of the Episcopate, Truro 1872Google Scholar, 3–4; CCC, 1873, 30; CCR. 1873, 258; Burton, C. J., An Increase of the Episcopate, London 1877Google Scholar, 20.

^{page 288 note 4} Wordsworth, C., Charge … Lincoln Diocese, Lincoln 1870Google Scholar, 62.

^{page 288 note 6} CCC, 1876Google Scholar, Appendix, Report of the Committee, 18–19.

^{page 289 note 1} Guardian, 14 June 1876, 776 col. 1; cf. CCR., 1876, 45–71.

^{page 289 note 2} Lambeth Palace, Tait Papers: Cross to Tait, 25 November 1876 and 30 January 1877.

^{page 289 note 3} Ibid., Tait's endorsement, dated 29 November, on the former letter from Cross.

^{page 289 note 4} P.R.O., Home Office 45/51214/24 and /26; Ch. Comm., file 1837/ii, passim.

^{page 289 note 5} P.R.O., Home Office 45/51214/36: Bishop Baring to Cross, 5 January 1877.

^{page 289 note 6} P.R.O., Home Office 45/51214/59: Archbishop Thomson to Cross, 1 February 1877 and 24 March 1877. The issue was complicated by local municipal rivalries.

^{page 290 note 1} Lambeth Palace, Tait Papers: Cross to Tait, 13 March 1876.

^{page 290 note 2} Ibid., Wordsworth to Tait, 29 March 1876 and Selwyn to Tait, the same date.

^{page 290 note 3} Ibid., Minutes of Meeting, 6 April 1876.

^{page 290 note 4} CCC, 1877, 105.

^{page 290 note 6} Guardian, 1 November 1876, 1438 col. 1.

^{page 290 note 6} Lambeth Palace, Tait Papers: Cross to Tait, 25 November 1876 and 30 January 1877.

^{page 290 note 7} Guardian, 11 April 1877, 465 col.

^{page 291 note 1} Lambeth Palace, Benson Papers: various notes and memoranda in bundle 1883/2D/ S179.

^{page 291 note 2} CCR., 1885, 250.

^{page 291 note 3} Canterbury House of Laymen, Report on the Increase of the Episcopate, London 1888, 3–9. This report noted that the population of the diocese of Southwell was over 853,000; but the demographic argument was perhaps not so strong as the Report imagined because the census of 1891 was to reveal that of the six dioceses created by Cross, Liverpool had over 1,200,000 inhabitants and St. Albans had over 1,006,000 whilst Southwell followed with a mere 975,000. Of the other dioceses, York, London, Durham, Lichfield, Manchester, Ripon, Rochester and Worcester all had more than one million inhabitants in 1891.

^{page 291 note 4} Church Quarterly Review, III (1876), 216.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 5} Id., xvi (1883), 153–84. This article was reprinted as a pamphlet in 1885.

^{page 292 note 1} CCR., 1886, 143–150.

^{page 292 note 2} Guardian, 24 August 1887, 1253 col. 2.

^{page 292 note 3} Id., 28 September 1887, 1445 cols. 1–3; cf. W. R. W. Stephens, Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman, London 1895, ii 370. Freeman's Historical Geography had been first published in 1881.

^{page 292 note 4} Freeman, E. A., Historical Geography, 2nd ed., London 1882, I. 170, 186.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} Op. cit., 3–4.

^{page 293 note 2} CCC, 1889,93.

^{page 293 note 3} Oxford, Christ Church, Salisbury Papers: Ridding to Salisbury, 13 May 1889.

^{page 293 note 4} Guardian, 7 August 1889, 1195 col. 3.

^{page 293 note 5} Id., 23 October 1889, 1623 cols. 1–2.

^{page 293 note 6} Id., 28 October 1891, 1748 col. 1.

^{page 293 note 7} ‘CCC, 1906, 289.

^{page 293 note 8} Tork Journal of Convocation (hereafter cited as rJC), 1908,

^{page 294 note 1} Cf. Guardian, 12 April 1893, 584 col. 3.

^{page 294 note 2} Id., 17 January 1877, 72 cols. 1–2.

^{page 294 note 3} Church Quarterly Review, XVI (1883), 179.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 4} Guardian, 19 October 1887, 1594 col. 3.

^{page 294 note 6} Op. cit., 9.

^{page 294 note 7} Philpott, H., Charge … Diocese of Worcester, London 1889, 10–11. A detailed study of the origin of the diocese of Birmingham is one of the two case studies in the present author's thesis.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 1} Guardian, 31 July 1889, 1159 cols. 1–2.

^{page 295 note 2} There was also a sluggish response to the appeal for an endowment fund without which the bishopric could not be founded. It is not clear whether the failure of the endowment appeal was due to economic conditions or to disagreement on the nature and extent of the proposed diocese, or to both factors.

^{page 295 note 3} Birmingham Diocesan Registry: arbitration of Bishop Kennion, 2 July 1902. Kennion's arbitration between Worcester and Lichfield on the extent of the proposed diocese of Birmingham gave an aura of respectable impartiality to an agressively forward policy by Gore. Kennion wrote that two principles had been followed in making the arbitration—that civil and ecclesiastical boundaries should be coterminous as far as possible and, secondly, that social and economic interests should be considered.

^{page 295 note 4} Gh. Comm., file 69513/ii: report on boundary alterations, 30 March 1905.

^{page 295 note 5} Cf. Guardian, 6 May 1903, 645 col. 2.

^{page 296 note 1} Ch. Comm., file 69513/iv: petition dated 30 March 1905. Many Lapworth residents, the petition noted, worked in Birmingham.

^{page 296 note 2} Church Quarterly Review, LX (1905), 3.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 3} rJC, 1908, Appendix, xiv-xix.

^{page 297 note 1} Ibid., II

^{page 297 note 2} CCR., 1911, 48–52.

^{page 297 note 3} CCC, 1912, 264–7.

^{page 297 note 4} Archbishop's Committee on New Dioceses, First Report, London 1916, 6 and 29.

^{page 298 note 1} Benson, A. C., The Life of E. W. Benson, London 1900, ii. 141, 213 and 260; cf. Oxford, Christ Church, Salisbury Papers: Benson to Salisbury, 24 December 1889.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 2} CCC, 1888, 45–9.

^{page 298 note 3} For examples: CCC, 1905, 151–4; id. 1906, 288; rJC, 1911, 80; CCR., 1911, 50; The Church of England and its Future, London 1919, 23–36.

^{page 298 note 4} Guardian, 4 March 1903, 305 col. 2.

^{page 299 note 1} Cf. Henson, H. H., Biskoprick Papers, London 1946, 80–2 (an article originally published in May 1930 in The Bishoprick, a magazine circulating in the diocese of Durham).Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2} Figgis, J. N., Churches in the Modem Stale, 2nd ed., London 1914, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 3} G. A. Beck (ed.), The English Catholics 1850–1950, London 1950, 86 ff.

^{page 299 note 4} Freeman, T. W., The Conurbations of Great Britain, Manchester 1959, 1–3Google Scholar, discussing Geddes, P., Cities in Evolution, London 1915.Google Scholar