The Grange

(previously the parish Vicarage)

1814: Map

The map drawn up in 1814 following the implementation of the Enclosures Act shows the site of the house as being owned by the vicar at that time, the absentee Rev. Richard Adams. The ownership was as a result of, and for the duration of, being vicar of Deopham and therefore passed to the next incumbent.

1850: The need for a vicarage

Deopham had long had absentee vicars so with the appointment of the Rev. George Turner in 1850 it was necessary for a vicarage to be built in the village. This was one of many thousands of vicarages built around this time as the Church of England tried to achieve its stated goal of an incumbent living in every parish. It was felt that the parsonage houses should indicate the status of their inhabitants as “men who were removed beyond the ordinary pursuits of life”.¹ There had previously been curates resident in the village, but no vicar. Initially the Rev. George Turner and his large family lived in Deopham Green. This was recorded in the 1851 census although it does not state which property they inhabited.

1850 Permission sought from the Bishop of Norwich

On November 23rd 1850, Bishop Samuel commissioned the Rev. William Wodehouse (Rector of Hingham) and the Rev. Charles Beauchamp Cooper (Rector of Morley) to investigate the proposed site of the new vicarage following an application he had received from the Rev. George Turner. Specifically, they were commissioned “to make enquiry into”:-

“The state and condition of the buildings upon the Glebe belonging to the said Benefice at the time the said George Henry Turner entered upon the same”;
“How long the said George Henry Turner has been the Incumbent thereof”²;
“What sum of money he has received, or is entitled to receive, for dilapidations and in what manner he has laid out what he may have so received”.

The bishop instructed his two investigators to report back on the “several facts which you shall ascertain on such enquiry”, and in particular whether there were signs of “wilful neglect” by the Rev. George Turner which would have caused the buildings “to go out of repair”.

The Reverends Wodehouse and Cooper responded to the bishop of Norwich on January 13^th 1851 reporting that “there was no building of any kind upon the said Glebe” and that the Vicar was entitled to receive £23 15s 10d for dilapidations from the representatives of the former Incumbent “which when received he has promised to expend upon the glebe belonging to the said Living”.
They further reported that the Rev. George Turner had “entered upon the said living” in 1850.

1851: Plans for the Vicarage

On March 12^th 1851 Mr. Charles Ayton, an Attleborough builder, drew up plans and specifications for a new “vicarage”parsonage house” for the Rev. George Turner. The builder described the timber growing on the site as “not being fit to be wrought up in the said New Vicarage House”. On the other hand, the builder should “be allowed to raise all Earth and Clay upon the said Glebe and make such quantity of Bricks as may be required for the whole of the Works and the Erection of House, Stables, Garden Walls, Outhouses and Offices”. The builder would provide all “Lime, Memel Timber³, British Oak, Stone, Hair, Floorware, Carting, Labour, Scaffolding, Tackling etc for the completion of the above Works according to Plan and Specification and execute all the above Branches in a sound substantial manner in every sense of the Word for the sum of Seven hundred Pounds”.

1851: Mortgage approved

The Rev. Turner received confirmation from the Queen Anne’s Bounty Commissioners that they would grant him a mortgage of £561 for the building of a Vicarage House. A letter written on May 26^th 1869 stated that the Mortgage Deed bears the date July 10^th 1851. The balance outstanding on the principal at the date of this letter in 1869 was £261 16s; the interest rate was 3½%. On June 3^rd of that year the Ecclesiastical Commissioners discharged this amount plus the outstanding interest.

1852: Vicarage is occupied

On May 31^st 1852 (Whit Monday), The Rev. George Turner wrote to the Dean & Chapter of Canterbury to tell them how well everything was going in Deopham, and that

… we are now settled in the new vicarage house – It is, I believe, well built, commodious – & conveniently near the Church and altogether such as will meet the approval of your Architect or Surveyor if at any time he should visit this place.

1873 Survey of state of Vicarage

The Rev. Hibbert Wanklyn who had been appointed to the vicarage in 1861 wrote to the diocese of Norwich on June 23^rd 1873 asking them to “give instructions to the Diocesan Surveyor to come over and inspect my Vicarage House with a view to ascertain the amount of repairs required”. Wanklyn had been resident in the vicarage for 12 years at this time.

The Diocesan Surveyor, John Brown, submitted his report on July 28^th 1873, details of which are available here.

The report gives a total estimate of £90 : 8s : 5d for everything that needed to be done, but it is not clear how much relates to the Deopham Vicarage House and how much is for works in Shipdham.

The Bishop of Norwich (John Pelham) wrote to the Suffragan Bishop of Dover (Edward Parry), who was also an Archdeacon of Canterbury, on Nov 28^th 1873 to say that he did not think that it would be fair for Wanklyn “to mortgage the Benefice to raise the money for Dilapidations if he is intending shortly to leave”. The letter below from Wanklyn dated December 8^th 1874 refers to the fact that he was still looking for an exchange a year later.
The question of Wanklyn moving out of the parish arose because in 1872 to 1873 he moved to Guernsey to recuperate from “a severe attack of bronchitis”; on his return he requested a transfer on account of his problems with Norfolk winters. There is more on this here.
The Bishop of Norwich also stated in his letter that the works proposed “consist almost entirely of repairs in matters which ought to have been kept in repair”.

1874: Vicarage is dilapidated

On July 29^th 1874 the Rev. Wanklyn wrote to Canterbury explaining that the Diocesan Surveyor had quoted £90 : 8s : 5d for the necessary works. He asked for permission to borrow this money from the Queen Anne’s Bounty. He continued that he was “totally unable to undertake such an expenditure. From long illness my expenses have been so heavy that I have had the greatest difficulty in meeting them”.
He wrote again on September 1^st complaining that he had not received a response to his previous letter.

The Rev. Wanklyn responded to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury who had refused his request to borrow money to repair the vicarage. There is no year on the letter, but he was appointed in 1861 and writes in this letter that he has been in post for 13 years.

Deopham Vicarage
Wymondham
Dec^r 8

I was much disappointed at the tenor of your note of the 4^th.
I applied for the permission of the Chapter to borrow the sum for dilapidations on this house with the sanctions of the Bishop under the new Dilapidations Act which provides for such cases, and gives 5 years freedom from any further claim in the event of vacancy. These dilapidations cannot be styled unnecessary and personal, as during my nearly 13 years incumbency I have been compelled to spend far more on this house than I should have done had it been properly built, and at one time seriously embarrassed myself by so doing. The Diocesan Architect’s Surveyor told me that he never saw a house so badly built – extremely consolatory to me when for 8 years I had been paying an average of £31 a year to Q A Bounty. I have not yet been able to effect an exchange and it may be some time before I succeed in doing so and if the Chapter will not be good enough to assent to my request I shall be obliged to relinquish my faulty attempt as it would be impossible for me to pay the dilapidations on vacating this cure. Many houses in this diocese have been repaired under the Act and it appears to me that the refusal of the Patrons of Livings to allow the sum to be borrowed would render it a …. letter. Hoping that the Chapter will be good enough to reconsider this case.
I remain
Yours faithfully
H Wanklyn

From a letter in the Chapter of Canterbury Archive, their ref BB 50/116

1876: Vicarage is too small

On March 10^th 1876 the vicar wrote to Canterbury as below. He refers to Mr Hake assisting in the previous year. Mr Robert Hake was locum in 1875, hence the year of 1876 for this letter.

Deopham Vicarage
March 10^th

Dear Sir,
Would you be so kind as to lay before the Chapter the following statement.
I have been enabled to put this house at Deopham in as good order as the faultiness of the building will allow, and as I have given up all thoughts of changing should be glad to enlarge it if the Chapter will aid me by allowing me to borrow the funds from Q.A.B. At present it is not large enough for the accommodation of my family [of] five children & I have no separate study. The only servants room I have is 9ft X 8ft without a fire place and were it not that I have two of my servants who are sisters, I could not accommodate them. Mr Hake, who kindly acted as my locum tenens in the summer of last year, will endorse my statement. I should be very grateful for any help in this necessary work if the Chapter would grant it to us. Apologizing for troubling you,
I remain
Yours faithfully,
H Wanklyn

From a letter in the Chapter of Canterbury Archive, their ref BB 50/111

The following letter was written by Wanklyn to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners:

Deopham Vicarage
June 13^th

My Lords and Gentlemen,
Will you pardon me for troubling you with the following application. I am not … whether I am asking what is not of your power to grant, but trust you will excuse me if such is the case. I wish to add to this Vicarage House on this benefice it being too small. There is no separate study, only four bedrooms, and one servants room not 9 feet square without a fireplace. The income of the benefice is only £268 in the gross and in consequence of there being no large proprietor the calls on me are very heavy. My family consists of myself and wife and five children 19, 16, 14, 10, 5 years old. I could not afford the necessary payments to Queen Anne’s Bounty. I have the consent of the Patrons to build. Could you kindly assist me in doing this very necessary work; I should be extremely grateful for any help that you can afford me.
I remain,
My Lords & Gentlemen
Your obedient Servant
Hibbert Wanklyn
Vicar of Deopham

Transcribed from a document held by the Lambeth Palace Archive, from file 40615.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners responded on July 14^th 1876 to say that they were “prepared to consider favourably the question of contributing towards the cost of executing the proposed additions to the [Parsonage House] upon being furnished with plans & a specification and an estimate of the cost of the contemplated works”. Wanklyn responded on August 2^nd the following year to say that he had “put the matter into the hands of Mr. Brown one of our Diocesan Architects but he was so inexcusably dilatory that I was compelled to consult the Archdeacon of Norfolk”. (Mr. Brown had previously carried out the dilapidations report quoted above.)

Copies of the proposed plans were sent to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ architect, Ewan Christian, for his opinion. He noted with some surprise the nine bedrooms, and commented that the kitchen seemed out of proportion (too small) for the increased size of house. He requested a number of technical changes which were incorporated by the Norwich architect John Pearce. The estimated cost of the enlargement was now £650 including the architect’s fees. In February 1878 the Commissioners agreed to pay £650. By July 1878 the cost had become £680 including the architect’s fees.
On April 6^th 1878 Wanklyn advised that work was going to start “Monday next April 8^th ” with completion scheduled for August 31^st.
The work was signed off by the architect on June 21^st 1879.
However, the final bill dated July 22^nd 1879 turned out to be £784 :18s :1d so Wanklyn was forced to write a letter the next day asking the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a further contribution. He explained to them that:-

No expense has been incurred that was not positively necessary. Some of the extras have been incurred from the Architect overlooking requisites and the rest mainly in consequence of the old building having to be pulled about more than was anticipated. Trusting that under the circumstances and considering the small income of the living your Lordships will kindly accede to my request.

Whilst there are red crosses on a few items on the invoice attachments, it does not appear that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had spotted that Wanklyn had used the occasion of the enlargement of the Vicarage to smuggle in a significant number of the repairs which the Commissioners had previously declined to accept following the 1873 dilapidations report.

The following is the invoice for the 5′ 4″ bath (“with brass plug & washer & waste pipe”) and for a back boiler stove; further details of the charges are here:

Image courtesy of Lambeth Palace Library, ref file 40615.

The letter which Wanklyn wrote on November 14^th 1879 indicates that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had declined this last request for another contribution towards the enlargement of the vicarage. He repeats that “nothing unnecessary had been done” and tells them that “as you well know, when an old building is touched things unforeseen occur, which entail further expense”. He then tugs hard at their heart strings:

I am asking you for this further grant most anxiously, as my income is small, my family large, and I am very doubtful whether I shall receive the remainder of the Tithes due to me for the past half year, as there is so much distress among the small farmers that they have not the means of paying, and I cannot press them.
Under these circumstances you will see that this is a matter of vital importance to me, and I shall be very grateful to your Lordships if you will grant this request that I have made.

1884 Map

Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland

1887 Outbuildings in need of repair

The following letter was sent by the Rev. H. Wanklyn on November 11^th 1887 concerning repairs to the outbuildings. It may have been that these were outstanding from the 1873 dilapidations report described above; unlike many other items, these could not be smuggled in under the cover of the vicarage enlargement.

Deopham Vicarage
Wymondham
Norfolk
Nov 11^th 1887
My Lords and Gentlemen
I am venturing to ask a boon at your hands for which I hope you will forgive me. The outbuildings such as stables, coach house, barn etc attached to this benefice are greatly in need of repair and I have not the wherewithal to do them. They were originally very badly put up by my predecessor and are now falling to pieces in places.
The living is very small, the tithes getting lower every year and more difficult to collect owing to the distress amongst the agricultural population. The fourth part of the last half year is still due and I have very small hope of ever getting it.
Trusting that you will favourably consider my petition,
I remain
Your obedient Servant
Hibbert Wanklyn
Vicar

Annotations in the margin of this letter made by the Commissioners’ office total up the benefits Wanklyn has received from them – £970 :2s 7d. Their note on the corner of the second page says “unable to accede to application – decision made – 14 Nov.”

1906 Map

Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland

1970 Sale of Vicarage by Church Commissioners

At the Deopham P.C.C. meeting on April 10^th1970, Richard Allen (the P.C.C. treasurer) reported that he had received notification from the Church Commissioners that they were “contemplating” selling the vicarage and its ground. An objection was raised; it was further suggested that “half an acre should be retained for future use if and when a new vicarage was needed”.
During the meeting on September 18^th 1970 Richard Allen reported that the Church Commissioners “will agree to the P.C.C. retaining one third of an acre of the vicarage property for a building in the future”. The P.C.C. agreed “provided a satisfactory right of way is obtained”.
The next time the matter was discussed was on April 22^nd 1977 when the P.C.C. recorded that the Norwich Diocesan Board wished to sell the retaining plot of land. The P.C.C. gave their consent, although they suggested that the Diocese should be asked for a contribution towards the cost of repairs to the external fabric of the church.

2004 Sales Particulars

the-grange-deopham Download

Footnotes

Augustus Pugin, The Present state of Ecclesiastical Architecture quoted in William Whyte Unlocking the Church, page 112 ↩︎
It might seem strange to ask how long a priest in the bishop’s diocese has been the incumbent of Deopham parish, but it has to be remembered that the Deopham priests were appointed by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. The local bishop did not always know what was going on in all his parishes! ↩︎
Memel Timber was named after the Baltic port of Memel (now known as Klaipėda – which is in Lithuania) from which the fir timber was exported; this trade had become well established by the end of the eighteenth century. ↩︎

Click here to return to Deopham Places

Date	Change
27/3/24	1850 approval and 1851 specifications
22/2/24	More on Wanklyn’s health
13/2/24	Extended 1874 correspondence
20/12/23	Published