The Rev. Edwin Proctor Denniss deserved to be better remembered than as the man who wrote to George Borrow about a dog.
Denniss’s record of birth has not yet been found but he appears to have been born in Carmarthenshire, Wales, around 1802. [1] There’s a possibility he was the son of Major Philip Denniss of Lletherllestry, Llanddarog, formerly of the West Indies, and Mary Gladwin his wife, who was found guilty of adultery with Philip’s brother George.
Rather unexpectedly before he was twenty years of age, Denniss married in France. The lady was Mariana who had been born in born Bidport, Devon. Things had to be done properly however, so in May 1822 he took out a marriage bond for £200 (i.e. a promise to marry Mariana or pay £200 if not), and followed through, marrying her by license in the parish of St. Peter & St. Paul, Bath, Somerset on 13 May 1822. Denniss was perhaps rather impulsive in love, but must have been from a well-off family. [2]
Edwin and Mariana’s first son Henry Parry was born 8 September 1823, and baptised at Leamington Priors, 8 October 1823. On the baptismal register Edwin’s profession is “Gentleman.” I.e. he was of independent means. Whatever Denniss’s means were, he was clearly starting to think he ought to do something with his life, and Dec. 20, 1824, he was admitted as a fellow commoner of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
As a more mature student, married, and of independent means, the next few years pass without record: he doesn’t appear to have been studying much. On 8 June 1828 he was ordained a deacon at Norwich Cathedral by Henry Bathurst. [3] This was an early step in becoming a clergyman.
An Internet page, since removed, claimed Denniss was appointed Stipendiary Curate to Wetheringsett, Suffolk, 8 June 1828. By 1831 this would be worth £120 per annum and included a house. It was in the gift of the Bishop of Norwich.
On 24 May 1829 Denniss was again back in Norwich Cathedral and was ordained a priest by Henry Bathurst. [4] I.e. clergyman of the Church of England. The Cambridge University Calendar for the year 1829, page 247 lists him still at Trinity Hall as a Fellow Commoner. Also in this year his daughter Mary was born at Wetheringsett, Suffolk. [5]
The London Star of 16 March 1831 says Denniss got his degree: he was a bit relaxed in his study, taking 7 years! But Denniss wasn’t a forgotten curate in a remote Suffolk parish: the Morning Chronicle, 30 May 1831 announced “on Saturday” he attended a “Drawing-room” at King’s Palace, St. James’s, to celebrate Queen’s birthday. And moving in such circles, The Times, 9 June 1832 speaking of Cambridge, June 8 announced: Lord Panmure has appointed the Rev. Edwin P. Denniss, B.C.L., of Trinity-hall, in this university, and alternate morning preacher at St. George’s chapel, Albemarle-street, one of his lordship’s domestic chaplains. They might not have overlapped but the Rev. William Webb Ellis (who invented rugby by picking up the ball at Rugby school) was also a preacher at St. George’s around this time.
Denniss was still living the high social life a few years later: the Morning Chronicle, 29 May 1833, announced “yesterday” he attended an official celebration of the King’s birthday.
In late December 1835, Denniss, still at St. George’s, Albemarle-street, was robbed. The report of the Westminster sessions in the Morning Chronicle, 1 January 1836 has:
It appeared that the prisoner was occasionally employed by the prosecutor’s [Denniss’s] groom, to assist him in the stable; during his absence the prisoner, who was entrusted with the keys of the stable, took a truss of hay from it to his own lodgings; he was observed by a policeman, who followed him and took him into custody, but not without great resistance on the part of the prisoner, who swore he would lose his life rather than be taken. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the County sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment and hard labour.
And just a month after this Denniss moved into the world of George Borrow. The Bury & Norwich Post 10 Feb. 1836:
On Friday last the Rev. Edwin Proctor Denniss, B.C.L. was instituted to the Rectory of Oulton, in the county of Suffolk, on the presentation of the Rev. George Anguish, of Somerleyton, in the said county.
Fortunately for us, George Bickers of Oulton (who was servant to the Borrows at various times), wrote of the Rev. Denniss:
I did not very much enjoy the preaching of Mr. Denniss, our rector. He was rather a domineering steward, contending that the Church of England, the church of his fathers, was the only true church; that it honours the bible, and was one of the oldest branches of Christ’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while dissenters and their creeds and ordinance, were erroneous and misleading and would in the end prove destructive to body and soul. I came into collision with that gentlemen more than once.
Interesting incidents in the life of George Bickers, p. 45
Denniss appears identical to Borrow as far as his views of the Church of England went. But Denniss had another side to him, and one of his first acts, according to George Bickers, was to build the gallery at the west end of the Church, for the accommodation of working men. Bickers says there was an inscription:
This gallery was erected at the expense of the patron and some of the principal landowners of the parish, A.D., 1836.
Edwin P. Denniss, B.C.L. Rector.
Henry Youngman, Breame Skepper, Churchwardens.
Breame Skepper was the brother of Mary, who later married George Borrow.
[Oulton Church.]
The accommodation might have been a bit rough in Oulton, so Rev. Denniss next had to superintend the building of a Rectory House, this took place 1837–8. [6] He also started a clothing club, although George Bicker’s wasn’t totally impressed:
Mr. Denniss, who was a working clergymen, and no doubt felt whilst he was industriously promoting habits of thrift and economy among the working classes, and founding what was called a clothing club, he was doing the work of the Lord, yet it was thought and said that too much of it was transacted on the day of the Lord.
Interesting incidents in the life of George Bickers, p. 47
In the 1841 census Denniss (then 40) is down as Rector: Mariana is also 40. Borrovians might be familiar with this page of the census, as just underneath the Denniss’s entry is one for a George, Mary and Ann Borrow, and Henrietta Clark, and Hayim ben Atar. [7] They’d come back from Spain and settled down in Oulton cottage around May 1840. As Oulton parishioners they would have attended Rev. Denniss’s church and no doubt got to know him well. There was also Francis Cunningham’s church at Lowestoft a few miles off, and no doubt all parties knew each other, visited etc.
However, in April 1842 a series of letters between Borrow and Denniss, subsequently published by William Knapp, shows how well the two got on. First a note from Denniss to Borrow:
Mr. Denniss begs to acknowledge Mr. Borrow’s note, and is sorry to hear that his dog and Mr. Borrow’s have again fallen out. Mr. Denniss learns from his servant that Mr. D.’s dog was no more in fault than Mr. B.’s, which latter is of a very quarrelsome and savage disposition, as Mr. Denniss can himself testify, as well as many other people. Mr. Denniss regrets that these two animals cannot agree when they meet, but he must decline acceding to Mr. Borrow’s somewhat arbitrary demand, conceiving he has as much right to retain a favourite, and in reality very harmless, animal, as Mr. Borrow has to keep a dog which has once bitten Mr. Denniss himself, and oftentimes attacked him and his family. Mr. Borrow is at perfect liberty to take any measures he may deem advisable, either before the magistrates or the Bishop of the Diocese, as Mr. Denniss is quite prepared to meet them.
Oulton Rectory, April 22nd, 1842.
It’s not known if Borrow completed and sent a reply, but he made a draft of one:
The Reply (rough draft).
Mr. Borrow has received Mr. Denniss’ answer to his note. With respect to Mr. Denniss’ recrimination on the quarrelsome disposition of his harmless house-dog, Mr. Borrow declines to say anything farther. No one knows better than Mr. Denniss the value of his own assertions. . . .
Circumstances over which Mr. Borrow has at present no control, will occasionally bring him and his family under the same roof with Mr. Denniss; that roof, however, is the roof of the House of God, and the prayers of the Church of England are wholesome from whatever mouth they may proceed.
Denniss purchased a lieutenant’s position in the 43rd foot for his son Henry Parry Denniss which was duly announced in The Times, 28 December 1842. Sadly, Henry would die 11th June 1849, aged 26. [8]
Denniss preached a sermon at Beccles, 3 May 1843, on “Obedience to the articles and rubrics of the Church of England”, and then had it published. The 1840’s were the high point of the Oxford movement, with a number of prominent churchman advocating pre-reformation ideas, conflicting with the 39 Articles of the Church of England: the sermon was aimed at uniting everyone around the Articles. [9] Denniss followed this up with a very long letter to the public rebuke to Rev. Charles H. Wodehouse, Cannon of Norwich, in the Ipswich Journal, 30 Sep. 1843, [10]. Wodehouse claimed the Church of England’s clergy didn’t believe the 39 Articles and were mainly hypocrites. Denniss’s letter is a defence of himself and the Church of England, and claims Rev. Wodehouse should resign: strong stuff.
The Denniss’s were about to move from Oulton, as on 27 December 1844 Denniss was appointed rector of Clifton, near Nottingham. [11] However, as George Bickers said in his book, Denniss had done a lot to improve Oulton during his time there:
Mr. Denniss, having built the rectory house, the school, appointed teachers, removed old buildings and various other things by way of improvement in our parish, to him assigned. In 1845, his effects were sold by public auction, and the man and his family took their departure after a brief stay of nine years
[St. Mary’s Clifton photographed by Alan Murray-Rust,
2009]
Rev. Denniss was to say at Clifton to 1853, [12] when he again moved, this time to Notting Hill, London. His new parish would be a ten minute’s walk from where the Borrows lived in Hereford Square, Brompton (from 1860), and included a notorious slum district called The Potteries. Borrow wrote a chapter on the area in Lavo-Lil:
After passing Tyburnia, and going more than halfway down Notting Hill, you turn to the right, and proceed along a tolerably genteel street till it divides into two, one of which looks more like a lane than a street, and which is on the left hand, and bears the name of Pottery Lane. Go along this lane, and you will presently find yourself amongst a number of low, uncouth-looking sheds, open at the sides, and containing an immense quantity of earthen chimney-pots, pantiles, fancy-bricks, and similar articles. This place is called the Potteries, and gives the name of Pottery Lane to the lane through which you have just passed. A dirty little road goes through it, which you must follow, and presently turning to your left, you will enter a little, filthy street, and going some way down it, you will see, on your right hand, a little, open bit of ground, chock-full of crazy, battered caravans of all colours—some yellow, some green, some red . . .
Lavo-Lil, pp. 228–9
For a socially connected and wealthy man as Denniss was, to move to Notting-hill, is a clear sign he took his ministerial duties very seriously and wanted to improve the lot of the poor. Sadly, he had little time to reform the area:
Death of a London Clergyman from Cholera.
Yesterday morning a profound feeling of gloom prevailed in the congregation of St. John’s Church, Notting-hill, in consequence of an announcement made by the senior curate, that the cholera had taken off the Rev. Edwin Proctor Denniss, B.C.L. the incumbent minister of the district. Notting-hill does not appear to have been visited with many severe cases of cholera; but notwithstanding its reputed healthfulness, it is very liable to severe attacks, being situated immediately above the filthy Kensington potteries, so frequently made the subject of complaint in sanitary reports.
Daily News, August 21, 1854
The newspaper was correct: Denniss almost certainly got the cholera from working amongst the poor in the Potteries.
There’s a monument to Denniss in St. John’s Church, Notting Hill: it’s at the west end of the church on the wall above the altar. The lettering is somewhat faded but appears to read:
To the
Reverend
EDWIN PROCTOR DENNISS, B.C.L.
Incumbent of the Church
His PARISHIONERS
Erected this Tablet in memory of
The Christian Zeal and Courtesy
Which characterised his short but
Successful ministry among them.
He died after a few hour’s illness
AUG XV MDCCCLIV
AGED LIII YEARS.“Therefore be ye also ready for in such an hour as
ye think not the son of man cometh.”
[Illustration of the Potteries from George Smith’s 1879 book Gipsy Life]
[1] Birth is inferred from the 1851 census record, which isn’t very readable.
[2] The marriage bond reads:
Edwin Proctor Denniss of the Parish of St. Peter & Paul in the City of Bath ... are held firmly bound to the Right Reverend Richard ... Bishop of Bath and Wells ... in two hundred pounds ... thirteenth day of May in the third year of ... George the Third ... Eighteen hundred and twenty two.
and then the entry of the marriage in the Parish register:
MARRIAGES solemnized in the Parish of St. Peter & St. Paul, Bath, in the county of Somerset in the Year 1822.
Edwin Proctor Denniss of this Parish and Mariana Denniss of this Parish were married in this Church by License having been previously married at Tauss[?] in France this thirtieth Day of May in the Year One thousand eight hundred and twenty two by me Robt. Young Keays [unreadable] Minister. This marriage was solemnised by us Edwin Proctor Denniss, Mariana Dennis in the Presence of ...
[3] The Bury and Norwich Post, 11 June 1828, “At a General Ordination, holden in the Cathedral Church of Norwich, on Sunday last, the following persons were admitted to Holy Orders: Deacons: ... Edwin Proctor Denniss ...”
[4] Source Bury and Norwich Post, 27 May 1829.
[5] Mary’s birth is estimated from the 1851 census return.
[6] Interesting incidents connected with the life of George Bickers, p. 47.
[7] The 1841 census has few details, but gives (for Oulton, Suffolk):
Edwin P. Denniss, age 40, Rector
Mariana Denniss, 40.
...
George Borrow, 36, Ind.
Mary Borrow, 42, Ind.
Anne Borrow, 66, Ind.
Henrietta Clarke, 20, Ind.
Hayim Ben Atta, 22, M. S. [male servant]
[8] The Times, 28 December 1842: [War-Office, Dec. 27] 43d Foot.—... Ensign Henry Parry Denniss to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Herries.
[9] Obedience to the articles and rubrics of the Church of England, a bond of union between the established clergy: a sermon preached at the Parish Church of St. Michael, at Beccles, Suffolk, on Wednesday, the 3rd of May, 1843, at the visitation of the ... (1843), London : G. F. and J. Rivington 1843. The sermon is available at Project Gutenberg.
[10] Ipswich Journal, 30 September 1843:
To the Rev. CHARLES N. WODEHOUSE, Canon of Norwich.
Rev. Sir,—The appearance of a Second Edition of your pamphlet, entitled “Subscription, the disgrace of the English Church,” must be the apology, which (as being personally an almost entire stranger to you) I offer for thus publicly addressing you.
Whatever remarks I may feel it my conscientious duty to make as a Minister of the Established Church (who in common with the great body of my Reverend brethren are traduced by you,) I most distinctly declare I make them upon public grounds alone—without the slightest intention of damaging your private character more than you yourself have done. I hear from all your friends who know you best, but one theme of praise of your personal amiability, and I most cordially believe it; but, however reluctant to intrude myself upon you and the public,—however unwilling to give any, the slightest offence to a gentleman so universally, and justly esteemed in private life as yourself, I cannot suffer that Church, of which I glory in being a Minister, to be dishonoured,—I cannot suffer the great body of my Reverend Brethren to be publicly branded as impostors—without raising my humble voice in their defence.
The possession of a good name in all the private relations of life is, indeed, an honorable and enviable privilege, but it ought not—it must not, and (if I can prevent it) it shall not, be an effectual panoply for public delinquency. Others, Rev. Sir, have, I believe, addressed you through the medium of the public prints, under feigned or suppressed names—I seek no such cloke for mine. I am too well aware of my own deficiencies not to feel assured I shall, in this step I am taking, draw down upon myself the criticism of many—the condemnation of some, who like yourself are heterodoxical,—it may be the covert, if not open censure of my superiors in the Church, for presuming to assail the opinions of an Elder Brother, and a Dignitary;—but none of these things alarm me: however weak I may be in wielding my pen, I am strong in a good cause, and fear not that you, and all the world, should know my sentiments and my name.
Upon the perusal of the 1st edition of your Pamphlet (which I did not happen to see until some time after its publication), I was on the eve of answering it, when I was anticipated by my friend, the Rev. Charles Green, Rector of Burgh Castle, whose name you had incautiously, and it appears unjustifiably, used, implying him to be a favorer of your heterodoxical notions; and therefore he had a superior claim to myself, not only from his position in the Church to defend the Reverend body to which we belong, but also to exonerate his own character from the suspicion you had attached to it. I had hoped that Mr. Green’s reply had produced that effect upon you, which I will venture to say it has done upon the great mass of those who have perused it,—that you had been convinced of the weakness, futility, and inconsistency of your arguments, so ably and so effectually refuted, I looked (I believe I may say the diocese of Norwich looked) for either, as we hoped, an acknowledgment of your error, or at all events, a rejoinder. As neither have appeared, and as you have had the hardihood to repeat your attack upon the Church and the Clergy, by putting forth a 2nd Edition of your Pamphlet, to which you have appended, indeed, a personal apology to Mr. Green, without, however, taking any notice of his refutation of your schismatic opinions, I am—nay the whole world are, justified in believing you have found that gentleman’s reply UNANSWERABLE—you have no new sophistry wherewith to shore up your damaged structure, or silence the battery which has shattered its foundations; and therefore it must—it does appear to every one that in republishing your pamphlet you are imbued with that obstinacy so quaintly versified in Hudibras —that
“The man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion still.”
It is not my intention to follow and refute the various arguments you have had recourse to, for endeavouring to establish your assertion that “subscription” to the 39 Articles “is the disgrace of the English Church”;—that task has already, as I have said, been ably and unanswerably performed by the Rev. Mr. Green. My present object, however, in thus addressing you, is to attract the notice of the public at large, and the Church in particular, to the unenviable position in which you have placed yourself, in order that they may judge what pretension you have, as an honorable and consistent public character, to claim their attention and respect.
The sum and substance of your pamphlet is, after all, nothing more or less than a declaration of your dissent from the Articles of the Church, and an accusation against the whole body of the Clergy (for your latitude is indeed unlimited, high and low and viâ media Churchmen are all included in your sweeping denunciation,) of being disingenuous, and consequently, disreputable men—that we have subscribed at our ordination to the 39 articles for the sake of worldly emolument, conscientiously, or rather secretly disbelieving them—that we have bound ourselves by a solemn oath to that, which we either do not understand, or do not hold to be true.
Now, Sir, can there be a more monstrous and awful charge than this brought against us? I protest when I think of it, and who that individual is who has had the daring to make it, I am almost led to disbelieve my senses. For my own part, I solemnly aver I am not amenable to this slander. I subscribed at my ordination and induction to the Articles of my Church, ex animo,—implicitly receiving them as the sound declaration of her faith. I looked to their spirit as embodying the true doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the wholesome substance of Protestantism—as comprising the great fundamental principles of our reformed Christian fabric—Regeneration at Baptism—the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper—Justification by Faith—a repudiation of the gross errors of Romanism—Salvation through Jesus Christ alone; together with all the other portions of that admirable formulary of our faith. And in making this declaration, I have a most perfect conviction that I am but speaking the sentiments of the great mass of my reverend brethren in the ministry—an overwhelming majority of honorable and conscientious men who are not, and never will be awakened “to the conviction that subscription, according to the plain meaning of words, is “blown to the winds, and become the disgrace and not the safeguard of the English Church.” [10a]
Sir, if the Church of England be “disgraced”—she is disgraced—not by the great body of her orthodox clergy solemnly subscribing to her Articles, but by her yet numbering in her ranks such men as yourself, who, some openly, and others covertly dissent from her tenets, and yet feed upon her emoluments. She is disgraced by having men holding high offices in her ministry who slander her fame, traduce her clergy, and speak and “write bitter things” against her doctrine and her discipline. She is disgraced by those being placed and continued in posts of authority, who dare to mutilate her offices by omitting portions of them which they profess to declare grates against their consciences to read. It is her Disobedient, and not her obedient, sons who are her disgrace.
But who is this that ventures thus openly to charge the Clergy of the Church of England with dishonesty and inconsistency? He is a beneficed Clergyman of that Church! He is a Canon of a Protestant Cathedral!! Above all, he is a Chaplain to a Protestant Bishop!!! whose office it is to assist in calling upon the candidates for ordination to subscribe to the Articles which he disbelieves, and which subscription he considers “the disgrace of the Church.” Beyond this, it is the same individual who in 1840 thus writes;
“I am prepared to retire from my situation in the Church unless I can in some way be assured on authority that entertaining the objections above mentioned I remain in it without loss of reputation.” [10b]
It is the same individual who having applied to the present Bishop of London on the subject of his scruples, was thus answered by that Prelate:
“If you cannot conscientiously subscribe anew, I do not understand how you can conscientiously continue to hold preferment by virtue of your former subscription.” [10c]
It is the same individual who having been frequently assured by the present Archbishop of Canterbury of the “impossibility of his obtaining an authoritative opinion on the points which perplexed him;” [10d] and that His Grace would not individually pronounce judgment upon him;” thus writes in 1841.
“I therefore respectfully request of the Archbishop to pronounce the judgment to which he has alluded, and should it require such a step, will, with God’s permission, in December next, tender the resignation of my living to the Bishop of the Diocese, and that of my Canonry, to the proper authority.” [10e]
This is the person who despite of these solemn asseverations—this coquetting with his conscience—and being thus oppressed with his scruples, still continues to retain his lucrative offices; and now, in his last pamphlet, justifies that usurpation (for, with his opinions, such it is), by stating that as others are guilty of the same unworthy conduct, and still “retain their situations, why should not he?” Proh pudor!
But, Mr. Canon Wodehouse, before you presume to shield your conduct under even such a plea as this—see whether you stand in the same position as those to whom you refer. And particularly the Oxford Tractarians. They with all their over-heated zeal, and mistaken judgement in many points—with all their errors in the production of that justly condemned Tract 90, and I lament to say, some others, in my humble opinion, almost equally reprehensible. They at all events stand on a vantage ground compared with you. They have subscribed to the Articles and still do so conscientiously—they even err in the excess of obedience to them, if that be possible, and do not cavil at the oath they have taken. They never publicly vaunted forth their readiness to resign their preferment, unless their opinions were universally adopted, or their scruples allayed. They, therefore, are at least guiltless of making an empty boast, which they never intended to put into practice. You then, Rev. Sir, have no more right to shelter the forfeiture of your word under their example, than you have to quote His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin—or Archdeacon Hare—or the Bishop of Calcutta, as favouring your heterodoxy, because they have written strongly in condemnation of the errors of the Oxford Tracts.
But Sir, before you can call upon the Clergy of the Church of England to listen to your schemes—before you can expect us to give you credit for sincerity—prove it:— Fulfil like an honourable, public man your public intimation. Resign your benefice—your stall—and above all your Bishop’s Chaplaincy, and then we shall be prepared to believe your public honesty, and disinterested zeal. Act like a consistent man—you profess to deplore the solemn engagement you have made—you repudiate that, which as a Minister of the Church of England you are sacredly bound to observe. You consider your “subscription” to the 39 Articles “a disgrace.” Free yourself from it then. Do not continue in that bosom for nourishment and support, which you so ungratefully sting and revile. Stand aloof from us, whom you consider a polluted Priesthood, and then we shall know how to deal with you, as an honest open adversary. But no longer CALL yourself, or BE of us—fear not that the cause of the Church of England shall suffer by your secession from her ranks. We are armed with ample weapons of defence against every assault. We have truth, honor, and integrity on our side, and care not who or what assails us, because we are strong in a just and righteous cause. But as it is, you have no pretension to be listened to—you have no right to become the maligner of your brother Clergy, seeing that you have paltered with—aye broken—your public word, and consequently have lost all weight which that word might otherwise have possessed. In the 6th page of your Pamphlet, you have ventured to brand the Clergy of the Church of England—if not directly, at least by implication—with “falsehood or dissimulation.” I indignantly cast back that imputation on yourself—to you it may be applicable—to such as you, who subscribe to what their conscience disapproves or disbelieves, and who continue recipients of the emoluments of a Church whose tenets they discredit—but not to me—not to the vast preponderating body of the Clergy of the Church of England, who glory in the honest subscription they have made to the Articles of that Church which they feel and know is the true branch of the Church Apostolic, and against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail.”
And now, Rev. Sir, I have done—it pains me deeply to be compelled thus to address a brother Clergyman, but a sense of public duty outweighs every private reluctance. You may henceforth write what you please, and say what you please; in your present humiliated position every effort on your own part, or that of every zealous friend you possess to justify you, will be fruitless—futile—until you have established, a claim to public honour and consistency by redeeming your public pledge,—then, and not till then, can you fairly enter the lists as an adversary of the Church; and then (if no other Champion offer himself,) I shall be prepared to cast down the gauntlet at your feet in defence of the Articles of the Church of England AS THEY ARE, and the honour, faith, and integrity of her Clergy who have conscientiously subscribed to them.
I remain, Rev. Sir,
Your most obedient, humble Servant,
EDWIN P. DENNISS,
Rector of Oulton, Suffolk.
Oulton Rectory, near Lowestoft, Sept, 28th, 1843.
[10a] Vide Mr. Wodehouse’s Pamphlet, 2nd Edition, page 5.
[10b] Vide Mr. Wodehouse’s Pamphlet, entitled “What is the meaning of Subscription?” page 10.
[10c] Ibid, page 39.
[10d] Ibid, page 46.
[10e] Ibid, page 84.
[11] An internet page has Edwin Proctor Denniss, Rector, Clifton, [reason for vacancy] Death of Henry Spencer Markham, [Patron] Sir Juckes Granville Juckes Clifton of Clifton Hall, Bart. [date of issue of Induction mandate] 27 December 1844.
[12] There are very few records of the Clifton period but it’s interesting to note that in the 1851 census Rev. Denniss, 49, is living at Clifton as Rector, whilst Mariana, 52, and their daughter, Mary, 22, were living in Leamington Spa. George Borrow tells is in Wild Wales that Mary and Henrietta wanted to go to Leamington Spa, so it was clearly popular in Borrovian circles. The 1851 census records:
[Clifton, Nottingham] Edwin P. Denniss, age 49, married, Rector of Clifton cum Galpton, born Llathestty, Llandottog, Carmarthen
[29 Dale Street, Leamington Priors], Marianna Dennis, aged 52, head of house, married, Clergyman’s wife, born Bridport, Dorset; [also] Mary Dennis, daughter, 22, born Wetheringsett, Suffolk.
