I recently read an article in The Guardian, which was so thought-provoking, I felt I must share it with the community.
The article was written by Andrew Edwards of Sussex Archaeological Society. I won’t repeat it here in full, but I have picked out the key points:

-We must enable communities to engage with heritage sites in ways that protect their own needs.
-We must find new ways to open up these spaces, so they remain relevant and serve a purpose.
-When a community can engage with these spaces, the whole economy and upkeep of a building    improves as a result.
-In treasuring the past, we must not forget about the present and the future.

The article got me thinking about our parish church, Christ Church. The fact that the building is Grade II listed will not save and preserve it alone.

There are many different answers, but here are 5 possible outcomes:

1. Thriving. Has been restored and has a large, active congregation.
2. Thriving. No longer solely a place of worship, but a community hub which is busy with all ages. Restored for this purpose.
3. Still standing, but unused.
4. Still standing, but only just. Unusable due to health and safety after lack of use for around 20 years.
5. Demolished, only the graves (those that aren’t overgrown/fallen/sunk) remain.

Obviously, number 1 would be the best possible outcome. The building is still serving its original purpose after 200 years.

This is also highly unlikely. Churches have faced this problem for a long time due to dwindling congregations.
To show just how much these figures have decreased, I have used data from the 1851 Religious Census and current figures to produce these statistics.
​

​Number 2 is the most desirable outcome if number 1 isn’t possible.  The benefits include:
​
a sustainable future for a valued local heritage asset,

new sources of grants and investment capital can be accessed to restore and develop the building,

the ability to establish a more enterprising income generating management model that provides a more sustainable solution to future building management and maintenance,

Influence on public perceptions, and local pride in their community,
​
Increased community involvement and engagement in their local assets, Stimulating new uses and attracting new audiences to experience and access a local asset.
 
Numbers 3 and 4 are certainly not wanted and number 5 would be devastating.

We need to look at this in several different ways.

How can we Prevent the unwanted outcomes (3, 4 and 5)?

We do not want the building to be demolished. Either of numbers 3 or 4 could also lead to outcome 5.

So, why are buildings usually demolished?

Age and lack of maintenance –
Old buildings have a weak infrastructure, due to the materials used deteriorating in quality over time, and therefore not reaching required health and safety standards anymore. Even if the building looks good, this will not necessarily reflect the quality of the structure. Poor ventilation and plumbing can sometimes be unsolvable without further damage.

Money –
Having an old building demolished (and rebuilt) will in many cases cost less than maintenance in the long term.
​
Infested with Dangerous Pests or Materials –
An abandoned building can become infested beyond repair with pests and toxic materials over time. It is common, especially in old industrial buildings, for toxic substances to fester in the walls, floors and pipework, so often the best option is to demolish it.

All of these reasons could be used in the future, without action by ourselves to prevent it.

If the active church congregation continues its rapid decline, the unwanted outcomes become much more likely.

The church is currently open once a week for a Sunday service. It can’t open much less often than that and continue to be maintained.
When the congregations reduce, so do the donations, which is what funds the upkeep of the church.

This means that outcomes 1, 3 OR 4 could lead to outcome 5 eventually.
(Of course, option 2 could also lead to eventual demolition at some point in the future, nobody knows anything for certain.)

We need to ensure that the decisions taken by us now, ensure the best possible chance of preserving our heritage for the future. This includes both thirty years from now and in the longer term, for our descendants to enjoy.

How can we achieve either of the desirable outcomes (1 and 2)?

This is where YOU (the community) comes in.

It would be unrealistic to think that the population will start actively worshipping or in some cases take on a new faith in order to save the building.

It would not either be expected for the active church congregation to suddenly stop worshipping.

Both the community and the church need each other to actively engage in creating a plan for the future.

If this doesn’t happen, the church building and it’s history and heritage  will slowly dwindle along with the congregation.

I would love to hear ideas and opinions from all sides on how this can be achieved.

I long for the day when I am writing a post showing some hope for the future of our local parish church.

THE CROFT BREACH OF PROMISE - SEQUEL IN THE COUNTY COURT
 
About twelve months ago a widow named clough recovered £50 damages at Liverpool against an elderly man named Southern, residing at Croft, near Warrington, for breach of promise of marriage. The damages were paid, but Southern refused to pay the costs, and a claim against him for payment of these costs was heard at the Warrington County Court yesterday.

Southern pleaded want of means, as he only earned a few shillings a week, being incapacitated by chronic rheumatism. He denied being the owner of several valuable properties, but admitted to having had property which was mortgaged.

The Judge had to caution Southern as to his conduct in the court towards Mrs. Clough while she was giving her evidence, and told him that unless he behaved himself he would be committed to prison. Judgement was given for the amount claimed, or in default thirty-six days imprisonment.

Southern said he would go to prison.

​A WARRINGTON GUARDIAN IN COURT - (SPECIAL TELEGRAM.)
 
Mr. Reginald Owen, an old member of the Warrington Board of Guardians, was charged at the Warrington County Sessions, to-day, with assaulting Mr. Samuel Thomason, a farmer at Croft; and there was a cross-summons in the case. The quarrel took place in the General Elliott public-house.
​
Owen was bound over in a £20 surety to keep the peace for six months. No order was made as to costs.

J. Pridmore was charged with having maliciously attempted to drown John Pridmore, his father at the parish of Winwick.
 
J. Pridmore, father of the prisoner-
I live at Winwick; my son came home at ten at night and asked for his supper; my wife said, "There was the same for him as there was for his father, some tea and some bread:"
he said "He would not be put off so:" he threw the teapot out of doors, and turned his mother out, and said "She might go where she went on Monday night:"
He had turned us both out on Monday: he said "He wished God might perish him if they were not two dead ones before morning:"
He pulled me out of bed and dragged me to the pond; I said, "My dear son, spare my life this night!"
When I was turned out on Monday I slept on some straw we had to top a hay-rick; my wife was with me;
When I asked him to spare my life he said, "No, d_n you will I;" he put me into the pond headfirst; he caught hold of my ancles, and tipped me quite over into it; my wife gave the alarm;
 
I crawled out; I got over a hedge and went into the town; almost all the people were in bed; I got to a public house and stopped their all night.

Sophia Pridmore, mother of the prisoner, corroborated her husband's statement, except that she described his language as more vile, and especially the expression of prisoner, that "He hoped God might perish him if they were not both corpses before morning"
 
She heard him dragging his father to the pond:

I heard prisoner plunge him in, he said to his father, "D_n you, i'll throw you in headfirst, that you drown the quicker!"
Then I called Thomas Gear; he came down in his shirt; I said, "For God's sake come down, for my husband is in the pond!" I went into Gear's house; my son came and knocked me down, and said "D_n your eyes, i'll soon stop your noise" He dragged me into the street, and knocked me down twice; I called out "Murder!" he put his hands on my mouth.
He locked me in the house and said "I'll go and see if the old devil is drowned - if not he soon shall be - I've given him a good ducking”
 
I shot the bolt and got out, and went to Mr. Jellis's cart hovel.
Prisoner came there and said, "Hallos, have you made your escape? D_n you- if not, I'll soon make the place too hot"

I put my apron in my mouth, so that he should not hear me fetch my breath. I got into the waggon. He hunted about the hovel but did not find me. I walked about all night.
 
Thomas Gear was in bed on the 26th of last July;
 
Mrs. Pridmore called me up; I went down and put on my shoes; I went to the pond; I met John Pridmore, the prisoner; he said "hello, who comes here, I'll put them in the pond" I said "What me, will you put me in?"  he said "yes, I will" I said "Then if that's it, I’ll turn and go to bed again" I was afraid of him.
He followed me home.

Mrs Pridmore had the candle and lantern in her hand; he dragged her down; she holloed "murder" three times.
I heard the water plunge; it was so dark I could not see.
 
Prisoner described the case as a friendly ducking and said that he was in beer.
​
Gear was re-called and stated in answer to the learned Judge that prisoner was of right mind; he was a married man but had sold his wife.
 
The learned Judge commented on the peculiarly horrible crime they were bound to decide upon and regretted they had not the consolation of believing the prisoner insane.
 
The jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty- Death recorded.

SAD OCCURRENCE: DASTARDLY CONDUCT OF A MARRIED MAN

A most painful event occurred at Newton on Monday last, casting a gloom over the whole neighbourhood.

This was the suicide by drowning of a most respectable young woman, named Elizabeth Gleave, aged only 18, domestic servant of Mr. Barclay, one of the overseers at McCorquodale’s printing works.
​
It appears that she and a young man names Michael Ward have been courting, but for some reason or other he refused to go out with her last Sunday. An acquaintance of Michael Ward, a married man named John Jones, who was aware that there was some little lover’s quarrel between the young folks, went and told Lizzie that he knew why Michael would not take her out, and if she would go with him, he would show her the reason for it.

Either by direct expression or by inuendoes, he led the young woman to believe that Michael was walking out with another girl, and if she would go with him, he would take her where she could have ocular demonstration of her lover’s supposed delinquency. Lizzie took Jones at his word and went out with him. Jones took her round by Hermitage Green to Winwick, where he persuaded her to enter the Swan Inn and have some drink, which took such effect upon her as to render her partially insensible.

He then took her in the direction of Newton, but what took place on the road no one can tell. Certain it is that the poor girl was exceedingly ill and sick. Her belief that her lover was untrue to her, and the shame to which she had been brought by Jones, prayed so much on the poor girl’s mind, that after writing two letters of farewell – one to her lover Michael Ward, and the other to her young mistress, Miss Barclay – she committed suicide by throwing herself into the ornamental lake at Newton, on Monday. 

Miss Barclay, entering the house after the unfortunate young woman had left, found the letters, and seeing one directed to herself, she opened it, and discovered that poor Lizzie, whom they had looked upon as almost one of their own, had destroyed herself.

Lizzie had indicated in her letter to Miss Barclay the spot where she intended throwing herself into the lake, and upon Miss Barclay immediately putting herself in communication with the police, the lake was dragged, and the body found at the exact place mentioned by the unfortunate girl.

The inquest was held yesterday before C. E. Driffield, Esq., at the Blue Lion, Newton, when the above facts were given in evidence. The jury returned a verdict of ‘Suicide while in a state of temporary insanity.’

The coroner praised Michael Ward, the lover, for the honest and straightford manner in which he had given evidence; but administered a severe censure upon John Jones, the married man, for the manner in which he behaved to the girl. The following is the unfortunate girls farewell to her lover: -

Newton, May 2, 1870
My dear Michael,
​
When you get this I shall be no more. You may guess the cause of my death. I never thought when we first met what would be the result of it. I suppose you know all about Sunday night. I only wish I had known before, it might have saved me; but now, as it is not what I hoped for, it is no use living. You have my heart; and oh, that I might have had yours, Oh, that we had never met, for to part is death to me. I did not think that you would prove so false to me as it seems you have done. You ought never to have thought of me when you had another – whom, I hope, you will not forsake, but ​will make your wife. Mend your ways, dear Michael, and give one thought to me, whose heart you have broken. Our acquaintance was not long, and I will now say farewell.

Yours ever,
LIZZIE GLEAVE