INDIGNATION MEETING OF THE INHABITANTS [FROM OUR OWN REPORTER]

BARNOLDSWICK, Thursday.

The excitement and indignation of the people of Barnoldswick in reference to the recent proceedings of the vicar in connection with his refusal to bury one of his parishioners, has in no way diminished, but rather increased. A feeling seems to have taken hold of the public mind that the different newspapers which have given reports of the affair have not done justice to the position taken by the friends of the deceased woman Curwen, and it was therefore determined to hold a public meeting for the purpose of giving expression to the feelings of indignation with which the inhabitants are filled.

At eight o’clock this evening, a meeting was accordingly held in the new Wesleyan School-room, which was crowded by an audience of some 700 persons. Mr. W. R. Roundell, of Gledstone, presided; and there were also present, among others, Mr. C. W. Hamilton, jun., Mr. J. D. Roberts, Mr. John Duckworth, Mr. T. W. Smith, Mr. J. Eastwood, Mr. R. Morris and Mr. P. Morris, sons of the Rev. Canon Morris, Mr. Wm, Waite, Mr. T. Curwen, Mr. L. Littlefair, &c.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, said that he felt great pleasure in being requested to fill the position of chairman. At the commencement he would say that he saw with pleasure the presence of a number of women at that meeting, because he knew that when English people were in any way wronged the women were the first to express their indignation (hear, hear).

He was there with mixed feelings of regret and pleasure: regret because he thought that many men might have been found who would have filled the position better, and pleasure because he felt that he did not come there as a partisan of either side. He had been a warm admirer of the Church all his life, and he came as a Churchman to protest against the deeds – the wrongful deeds – of a Churchman. He had seen his friend Canon Morris, who had abstained from being present because, from the high position which he occupied, his presence at that meeting might be misconstrued. He could assure them that Canon Morris’s sympathies were quite with them (hear, hear). Another friend of his, Mr. Wasney, had written to say that no one regretted more than he did the proceedings which had been taken. Their intention in meeting was, then, to express the dissatisfaction of the parishioners at the recent proceedings in which their vicar had been concerned. He would say a few words as to the steps which the Rev. Mr. Ireson had taken in this deplorable matter. By common law all fees for burials, christenings, &c., were fixed in every parish, and he did not believe any incumbent had a right to go beyond these fixed fees (applause). The next question was a more difficult one – whether a clergyman, where the burial fees were not paid, could refuse to bury a corpse. He believed that the clergyman was bound to bury the corpse, and that the fees should be arranged for afterwards (applause). They would all unite in sympathy for those whose feelings had been so outraged (applause). They would all feel for the Curwen family. They were attached to the places where their forefathers had lived and died, and while this feeling was planted in the breasts of all Englishmen, he believed that it was nowhere so strong as in West Yorkshire and Lancashire (hear, hear). He should like to say a word or two for the purpose, if possible, of throwing oil upon the waters. He knew there was a strong feeling, and their sympathies had been deeply touched, and that on occasions like this it was difficult to regulate the feelings of those who had been so much harrowed; but he would beg them all to act in a temperate manner, but at the same time with firmness (applause).

MR. T. W. SMITH then read the last letter which the Bishop of Ripon had sent Mr. Ireson, which is given elsewhere, and moved the following resolution:

That this meeting desires to express its deep indignation at the heartless and cruel conduct of the vicar in refusing and delaying to bury the body of a deceased and attached member of the Church, because his arbitrary instructions to the sexton were not carried out, and his self-imposed fee was not previously paid.

MR WM. CLARK seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously, with loud applause.

MR. J. D. ROBERTS moved the next resolution, as follows:

That this meeting solemnly declares that the opposition to the vicar is not, as stated by him, solely from the Dissenters, but from all the old Church people of the parish, and has been aggravated by his continued mercenary and unfeeling conduct.

MR. SAMUEL SLATER seconded the resolution. He said he could assure them that if the press had not made many remarks on this matter which were not true he should not have come before them. His attention had been called to some remarks which had appeared in the Leeds Mercury on the subject. In the opening of a leading article the editor said that he considered that the vicar was justified in stopping interments in the old ground on account of the disgusting scenes which took place when the remains of deceased persons were dug up. Now, this was not the real point at issue – it was not, in fact, the matter in question at all (applause). The question was really one of cash (loud applause), and he thought that the previous conduct of the vicar fully justified this conclusion. In fact, what was one of his first acts on coming to the parish? Dodgson’s farm was a farm that was let to a person to cultivate that he might try to get it into a better state. That person held the farm under a lease, but on account of the contract which had been made by the vicar’s predecessor proving to be null and void, the vicar had taken upon himself to raise the rent (applause). It was therefore plain that cash was the chief consideration, and not the feelings or the advantage of the person who had done the real work on the land. Besides, on several former occasions the payment of the fees demanded by the vicar had been withstood, and had, in fact, not been paid, and he would ask was it a question on these occasions of bones being dug up? No, because when these extra fees were refused the vicar declined to take any fees at all, and this showed that the question was a cash question (loud applause). If he could not get what he wanted he would have nothing at all. Then, when the new ground was first opened a charge of £1 was imposed, but of course the vicar, finding that parties did not care about interments being made in the new ground, removed the extra fee from the new to the old ground, and this showed that when he found that the old ground was preferred he knew that the only way in which he could get the money was to transfer the extra fee to the old ground (applause).  Thus the plea that the fee was intended as a prohibition to prevent any more interments in the old ground was only a subterfuge by which he wished to creep out of the dilemma into which he found he had brought himself (applause). If he had really intended to make the alterations and prevent interments in the old ground he should have made his intention publicly known and the grounds for his wishing to make the alteration, and not have taken advantage of people in such circumstances as he had done (applause). He said it was cruel and inhuman for any person to take advantage of persons in such circumstances. He again assured them that the only reason for his taking part in the meeting was in order that they might have a true statement of the matter.

MR. T. W. SMITH moved:

That this meeting states the fact that during the time of the Vicar’s incumbency more than a hundred bodies had been buried in the old churchyard, and only six in the additional portion, and this because soon after the consecration he imposed a charge of one pound for every burial in the new, in addition to the ancient fees, and subsequently reduced it to 5s. Finding this unproductive, he has transferred the charge to the old portion on the plea of decency.

Mr. THOS. BRIGGS seconded the motion, which was carried amid applause.

The next resolution was proposed by Mr. DUCKWORTH, and seconded by Mr. T. W. SMITH, and was as follows:

That this meeting holds that decency or indecency cannot depend upon a money payment to the Vicar, and that the churchyard can only be closed upon order from the Secretary of State.

Mr. W. BRACEWELL, who was received with cheers, said that the real truth about the action of the vicar was that there was a bit of self-will about it (applause). All who had seen the man and had had to do with him knew that it was a cash question from first to last, but at the same time there was a good deal of “I” about it, and a good deal of “the Vicarage” about it too (loud applause and laughter). He knew very well that poor Canon Morris had caught it at the hands of the vicar pretty frequently, but he would say that if Mr. Ireson had looked after his parish as well as Canon Morris had done they would have been in a better position, and would have been more civilised than they were at Barnoldswick (hear, hear).

But the vicar could leave them for two or three months at a time, while his parishioners could go into the highways and hedgerows and do as they liked, while not even the Holy Communion was administered (applause). A box or a purse was stuck before their noses every Sunday, and they must contribute, otherwise they were “uncivilised” (laughter and applause). If he had done his work himself there would not have been the need for these calls upon them to build schools and to support a minister to do the vicar’s work, while he left them for two or three months at a time. He sympathised with them, and he really thought that his Church friends needed sympathy. He believed that if the Church people had to elect a clergyman now, Mr. Ireson would never be elected for Barnoldswick (hear, hear). Indeed, he did not think any denomination, Wesleyan, Baptist, Independent, Primitive Methodist, or any other, would have anything to do with him if they had the chance (loud applause and laughter). When the vicar came into the parish the first thing that he did was to double the dues for funerals.

He (Mr. Bracewell) was appealed to many times, but as he was a Dissenter he did not wish to interfere. But it came to his turn and touched his own pocket, and then he did take action. A daughter of an old servant of his died, and the vicar stated that if double dues were not paid at his house he should not even go to the church to officiate at the funeral. Some of his Church friends came to him and said that there would be a scene if he did not interfere in some way, so he sent a solicitor from Manchester to tender any amount of money which the vicar demanded under protest. But the vicar would not have the money before the funeral. He therefore attended at the vestry after the funeral and again tendered the money, but the vicar would not have it at all. At that day he was as strong and resolute and determined in his conviction that he was in the right, and yet it all came to nothing (applause).

He did not know whether he was right or wrong in the present case, but that was not the question now. The question was one of sympathy with the friends and relatives of the deceased, and not only with them but with the whole parish (applause). He believed that Mr. Slater had stated a fact when he said that a prohibitory fee of twenty shillings was first put upon the new ground. Why was this extra fee imposed when the new ground never cost the vicar anything? He (Mr. Bracewell) was one who suffered a little loss to provide that ground; the ratepayers of the parish subscribed the whole amount; the conveyance and other deeds were entirely free – so far as any charge on the vicar was concerned – and what right had he to impose an extra fee above that which was charged on the old ground? (loud applause). Therefore, if the fees should be regulated – as they ought to be – in the same way for the new ground as for the old, under what pretext could he transfer the extra fee from the new to the old ground? The truth was it was a matter of self-will, and a determination to look after his own interest (loud applause). At any rate, if there were any interments at all to be allowed in the old ground,  surely it was the parishioners themselves who had the first claim to be considered. But he understood that that very day a non-parishioner had been interred in the old ground, on payment of fees amounting to the sum of £3 15s. Certainly money covered a multitude of sins (loud applause and laughter).

The motion was carried unanimously.

Mr. EASTWOOD moved a resolution, thanking Canon Morris for his prompt assistance in the matter. He said that those who had read the Bradford Observer of the previous day would see that a letter had been sent by the vicar to Canon Morris, one sentence of which was as follows:-- “Neither you nor the bishop has the liberty to invade my rights.” He thought it was important for the parishioners of Barnoldswick to inquire what were the rights of the vicar, or what he considered to be his rights. Was it his right to break through at his will the time-honoured customs of the parish? Was it his right at his will to double the dues for burial, and to increase the fees for marriage? Was it his right when he thought proper, because one of his parishioners had omitted to pay all the dues, to keep for a considerable time in the wet and cold the corpse of a person related to the man who had omitted to pay those dues? Should he claim the right to put upon any portion of the churchyard any fee he thought proper? In that case he might impose a fee not merely of 15s., but of £15 or £1500 (loud applause). If he had a right to levy an extra fee, the fixing of the amount of that fee remained entirely with himself. Were these his rights? It had been intimated by the writer in the Bradford Observer that this was a Dissenters’ question. From what had been already said, they would be fully aware that it was not primarily a Dissenters’ question, but if these were to be considered the rights of the vicar, it would become a Dissenters’ question (applause), and the people of the parish would – as it was their duty to do – come together and demand that a cemetery be at once got (loud applause).

Mr. ALFRED STRICKLAND seconded the motion, and read a letter from a parishioner to the effect that she had known of a similar case to the present in which the vicar had demanded extra dues for the interment of a child. He thought this letter contradicted a statement which the vicar had made in a letter published in the Bradford Observer. The position which was taken by the vicar really amounted to this. That the old churchyard was too full if ordinary fees only were paid, but it was not too full if a fee of 15s. was paid (loud applause).

Mr. BRACEWELL again addressed the meeting. He said that there had been a good deal of misconception as to the state of things between the vicar and the sexton. If he was rightly informed, the vicar told the sexton to dig graves in the old ground, but that he was to charge an extra fee of 15s. for them, and that the sexton was to tell the parties that that extra fee would be charged. The sexton said, “No; tell them yourself; I shall not interfere in what is not my business; I shall not tell them that there is an extra fee” (applause). On the Saturday morning when the grave was being dug, a marriage was taking place at the church, and the vicar came to the churchyard. At that time he must have seen where the grave was being dug, and yet he made no inquiry and asked no question, and did not see whether there was any indecency or not (applause). If he had done his duty, he would have gone to the relatives of the deceased and said that he would not bury the deceased in the old ground without the payment of the fee of 15s. Instead of that he wanted to throw the responsibility on the sexton, who had nothing to do with his charges, but who had work enough to look after his own (hear, hear). He told the sexton to dig the graves in the new ground six feet deep, that he might bury one person over the other. The sexton naturally wanted to know who was to pay him for his extra work; there was no answer. He told the sexton to dig another grave. The sexton asked who was to pay for the second grave being dug; there was no answer (applause). And yet all the responsibility was to be cast upon the sexton, which the vicar ought to bear  himself. He believed that this was a correct statement. If he was wrong he hoped he should be contradicted, as he wanted perfect fairness for both sides. (a Voice: “There’s no other side on this question,” and laughter.)

The resolution having been carried, Mr. THOS. HARTLEY next spoke.

He made a proposition to the effect that the vicar’s gas [which it was stated was supplied from Mr. Bracewell’s works] should be charged double – a proposal that was received with loud cheering and laughter. Mr. Hartley went on to say that as a working man he felt greatly insulted by the remarks which had appeared in some of the newspapers as to the condition in which the inhabitants of the village were, and he would say that, although those journals seemed to consider the people very illiterate and ignorant, they had on several occasions outwitted the vicar, with all his sense (laughter).

Mr. BRACEWELL remarked that in the course of some conversation which he had had with the chairman of the Petty Sessions at Skipton (Mr. Ingham), that gentleman stated that there were fewer cases of crime or misdemeanour from Barnoldwick, in proportion to the population, than from any other district, and that they scarcely ever had a case of actual dishonesty or theft.

Mr. B. ATKINSON moved –

That, in the opinion of this meeting, the conduct of the vicar in refusing to bury the late Grace Curwen is unscriptural, unchristian, inhuman and unnatural.

Mr. THOS. HARTLEY seconded the resolution, which was carried with acclamation, and the proceedings, which had been of the most enthusiastic character throughout were brought to a conclusion by the passing of votes of thanks to the chairman, the churchwardens for their efforts in calling the meeting, and to the sexton for his courageous resistance to the demands of the vicar. 

PART THREE

 TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRADFORD OBSERVER

SIR,-- On each of the first three days this week you have published reports under the heading “The Extraordinary Affair at Barnoldswick.” The paragraph which appeared on Monday was in many respects incorrect, as your subsequent reports have, however, shown. I must ask to be permitted to contradict some of your informant’s statements on the other two days.

(1.) The fees for marriage are as I found them when I came here four years ago, viz., 1s. for banns and 2s. 6d. for the ceremony. How, then, can your informant state these as 2s. and 7s. 6d., and mention this as a “substantial grievance?” Any change in this direction could be but optional until it had received the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A recent Act of Parliament gives the Registrar authority to ask for 2s. and 5s. for similar service in a civil marriage, so that such a change would be nothing to be ashamed of. To my mind, it is perfectly preposterous that a fee paid in the time of Richard I. should remain unaltered.

(2.) As to the late parish clerk, he did not resign because of my “innovations;” but a serious act of misconduct, on his part, led him to send me his resignation – the withdrawal of which I have never permitted, nor appointed another, as I prefer that my congregations should “clerk” for themselves.

(3.) Your readers must judge for themselves whether my “innovations” deserve to be thus reprobated when I state, (a.) There had never been a curate in the parish, whilst now there is one. (b.) Three townships out of the five never had Church of England service, whilst now they have, and their five wardens were all non-communicants. (c.) Sunday services were two, and sometimes one or three in number, as the case might be; now they are six. (d.) The people only had the privilege of giving in the Lord’s House once or twice a year, but now “on the first day of every week” (I. Cor., xvi. 2); and here it is that the shoe pinches the niggardliness of a few. (e.) When I add daily service and weekly communion to the above, your readers will understand how some Churchmen here, out of many faithful adherents, have been found thus to malign me.

(4.) It is not true that I “impose a fee of five shillings beyond the customary dues for making a new grave in the new ground,” although such a sum is asked when a family desire a specially favoured spot there. Nor need I hesitate about this, when it is remembered that my only fee otherwise is 1s. 6d. – reasonable enough when money produced twenty times its present results, but utterly absurd now.

(5.) The remains of the deceased, Grace Curwin, if placed conveniently in the additional burial ground, would have been almost as near the tombstone of her ancestors as they are now, besides obviating the great unpleasantness involved in throwing up the bones of another family to oblige her brother.

(6.) “The dissenting cotton manufacturer” to whom you refer sent my sexton distinct orders on Sunday last not to dig in the new ground, and all this for the sake of unpleasantness. After all, the sexton is somewhat to be pitied, as the daily bread for himself and family thus depend on another than himself.

(7.) In your Wednesday’s issue you are asked to state that my prohibitory fee or fine for the use of the old ground has been recently transferred from the new ground to the old. This is a barefaced untruth.

This afternoon I interred the body of a parishioner in the additional burying ground, and in the very plot called “No. 25” in your copy correspondence No. 2. For public decency’s sake it is hoped that the sexton and his advisers will follow my memoranda of Dec. 30 until they are satisfied that my directions therein contained are illegal. It is perfectly clear that I cannot be expected to take a shovel and dig a grave whenever the sexton chooses to disobey my instructions. In the special case at issue, the darkness came on last Saturday night so that I was unable, even had the law permitted me, to send another man and have a grave dug in the additional ground before Sunday’s service. If, however, the Bishop and Rural Dean had not so illegally stepped in on Monday last, I should most certainly have taken it upon myself, though at considerable risk, to have had a grave prepared and the body interred this week.

And with regard to the Canons (1603), it must not be forgotten that they never received the sanction of the legislature of this country, and are only obligatory upon the clergy when they do not direct anything to be done against the law of the land. Furthermore, they must be interpreted in the light of common sense, so that if Canon 68 orders a clergyman “not to delay to bury any corpse that is brought, convenient warning being given him,” it does not, for example, compel him to bury the unbaptised, nor to inter when the grave has not been prepared for the purpose, though neither of these points is made an exception in the mere wording of the canon – the law of England providing that the clergyman need not bury the unbaptised, nor even the baptised, except where he pleases in his churchyard, whenever he thinks it right to exercise this latter discretion [2 Wils. 28; ex parte Blackmore, 1 B and Ad, 122].

My correspondence with the Bishop of Ripon I enclose. – I am, &c., SAMl. H. IRESON.

Barnoldswick, January 15, 1874.

Copy No. V.

Telegram from the Rev. S. H. Ireson to the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

8a.m., January 13, 1874.

From what I hear you must have been misinformed. I am and have been prepared to inter this corpse in the additional burial ground, but I absolutely forbid any one officiating in my churchyard without my permission. Forward at once.

Copy No. VI

Telegram from the Bishop of Ripon to the Rev. S. H. Ireson.

Handed in 10.17, sent out 10.45.

I order the corpse to be interred, and authorise the churchwardens to obtain the services of any clergyman to officiate.

Copy No. VII

The Palace, Ripon, January 12, 1874

Dear Sir, -- I regret to have to inform you that a complaint has been officially laid before me to the effect that you have refused to read the burial service over a deceased parishioner, unless a fee of 15s. was previously paid, and that in consequence of your refusal the corpse remained all one night in the Church unburied. Before I take any steps in the matter I consider it is only fair to afford you the opportunity of saying whether or not this report is true. For your own sake, I sincerely trust it is not. I shall expect your reply by return of post. – I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, R. RIPON.

Rev. S, H. Ireson.

Copy No. VIII

Barnoldswick, January 16, 1874

My Lord, -- Yours of yesterday’s date has reached me in due course at ten o’clock this morning. My telegram to your Lordship left here at eight o’clock to-day, and the reply came at eleven. It is not true that “I refused to read the Burial Service over a deceased parishioner unless a (burial) fee of 15s. was previously paid,” as proved by my enclosure of December 30^th. It is, however, true that I refused to proceed with the service until the sexton had prepared the grave according to my written instructions to him dated December 30^th last. You state “before I take any steps in the matter I consider that it is only fair to afford you the opportunity of saying whether or not this report is true.” Yet, before your Lordship’s letter could reach me you actually telegraphed last night to the churchwardens of this parish authorising them to secure the services of another clergyman, and proceed at once with the interment, which was accordingly and most illegally carried out by my neighbour and your Rural Dean, the Rev. L. S. Morris, at nine o’clock this morning. How unjust to any one of your clergy without first hearing his statement! The position I have taken and intend to maintain in this matter is set forth in the four enclosures:--

I.               My letter to the sexton on December 30.

II.             My instructions to him of the same date prepared by one of our ablest ecclesiastical lawyers.

III.           My written notice of Sunday last, the 11^th instant.

IV.          My letter to your Rural Dean of to-day’s date.

[These documents have appeared in previous issues of the Observer.]

I am, your faithful servant,

SAMUEL H. IRESON.

The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

P.S. – Except you have acted under misapprehension, I shall appeal to the archbishop, and under existing circumstances I must reserve to myself the right of publishing our correspondence.

Copy No. IX

The Palace, Ripon, January 14, 1874.

Rev. Sir, -- I have received your letter of the 13^th instant. It appears from your own admission that you refused and delayed to bury a deceased parishioner in the churchyard. In consequence of this refusal the corpse remained in the church unburied during the whole of Sunday and for three whole nights. A grievous scandal has been thereby occasioned, and intense indignation excited amongst your parishioners, whose feelings you have cruelly outraged. By the 68^th Canon, which as a clergyman you are bound to obey, it is enacted that no clergyman shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or churchyard, convenient warning having been given him thereof before. By the same canon any minister so offending is liable to suspension by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months. No disobedience to your directions on the part of the sexton exonerates you from your responsibility in relation to the interment of a deceased parishioner.

By refusing or delaying to bury the corpse in question in some part of the churchyard unless a certain fee, named by yourself, was first paid, you have rendered yourself liable to legal proceedings, besides having been guilty of a want of feeling which I am at a loss to describe as it deserves. I have placed the matter in the hands of my legal adviser. In the meanwhile, if the churchwardens or any of your parishioners choose to take proceedings against you they are perfectly justified in doing so. – I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully,

R. RIPON

The Rev. S. H. Ireson.

Copy No. X

Barnoldswick, Jan. 15, 1874.

My Lord, -- Yours of the 14^th is duly to hand. You must excuse me for saying that you evade the real point at issue from beginning to end. I am, therefore, glad to hear that your Lordship has “placed the matter in the hands of your legal advisers.” I have been in the “hands” of mine for some time. – I am, your faithful servant, SAMUEL H. IRESON.

The Rt. Rev. Lord Bishop of Ripon.

P.S.—What your Lordship says only holds good if I had refused “to bury the corpse altogether.”