The 32 peals rung by independent societies were thus distributed, viz.: Cheshire, 1; Derbyshire, 2; Gloucestershire, 2; Herefordshire, 2; Leicestershire, 3; Middlesex, 3; Northamptonshire, 4; Nottinghamshire, 1; Staffordshire, 8; Surrey, 2; Sussex, 3; Worcestershire, 1, total, 32.

The 275 peals of Treble Bob were rung as follows: In the Kent Variation: Maximus, 3; Royal, 32; Major, 189. In the Oxford Variation: Royal, 4; Major, 43. There were also rung one peal of Surfleet Treble Bob Caters two peals of Little Albion Treble Bob Major, and one of Rose of England Treble Bob Major.

The 336 peals of Grandsire Triples may be sub-divided as follows: Holt’s Original, 48; Holt’s 10-part and variations, 75; Holt’s six-part, 4; Parker’s one-part 4; Parker s four-part, 1; Parker’s six-part, 9; Parker’s twelve-part, 82; other peals by Mr. J. J. Parker, 2; Carter’s twelve-part and variations, 11; other peals by Mr. J. Carter, 9; Taylor’s peals, 22; Hollis’ one-part, 4; Hollis’ five-part, 15; Rev. C. D. P. Davies’ peals, 14; Vicars’ peals, 11; Matthews’ twelve-part, 3; Reeves’ ten-part 3; Moorhouses’s peals, 3 ; Thurstans’ five-part, 3; Aspinwall’s peals, 2; and other peals (including four unnamed), 11.

The 223 peals in Plain Methods comprise: Bob Maximus, 1; Bob Royal, 15; Bob Major, 187; Oxford Bob Triples, 12; Plain Bob Triples, 7; St. Simon’s Triples, 1.

The 310 peals of Stedman Triples comprised: Thurstans’ four-part and variations, 265; five-part, 2; Washbrook’s peals, 12; Sir A. P. Heywood’s peals, 8; Carter’s peals, 11; Rev. E. Bulwer’s peals, 5; Lindoff’s peals, 2; Rev. C. D. P. Davies’ peals, 2; Dr. Carpenter’s peals, 2; and Rev. E. B. James’ Odd Bob peal, 1.

The 118 peals of Doubles are shown in the following statement:-

Association.No. of Methods.
Bath and Wells621----9
Central Northants7--1-1-9
Cleveland and North Yorks11-----2
Ely Diocesan1------1
Essex County--12---3
Gloucester and Bristol14-----5
Hereford Diocesan1831----22
Kent County1------1
Lincoln Diocesan2------2
Llandaff Diocesan21-----3
Middlesex County3------3
Midland Counties4------4
Norwich Diocesan-12111-6
Oxford Diocesan--11---2
Salisbury Diocesan21-----3
Salop Archidiaconal1-1----2
Surrey County1-1----2
Sussex County51-----6
Winchester Diocesan2------2
Worcestershire and Districts3213--110
Independent Societies81--11-11


The greatest number of changes in one peal, viz.: 10,080 of Bob Minor were rung by a band of handbell ringers belonging to the Peterborough and Districts Association. Long peals were also rung of 7325 changes, 7200 (on handbells), 7104 (on handbells), 6080, 6063 (on handbells), 6048 (twice). There were 2351 peals of under 6000 changes.

The number of peals rung on church bells was 2142; on handbells, 217; making a total of 2359.

The peals rung in 1913 were 30 more than those rung in the previous year. They were rung in the following months, viz.: January, 171; February, 150; March, 197; April, 183; May, 245; June, 131; July, 124; August, 188; September, 191; October, 208; November, 261; December, 310.


The conductors of five peals and upwards are shown in the following table. A figure in brackets added to a name denotes the number of handbell peals conducted:-

61Peals:Keith Hart.
59Peals:A. H. Pulling (41).
53Peals:W. Pye (13).
50Peals:F. Bennett (5).
27Peals:George Williams.
26Peals:Bertram Prewett.
24Peals:E. M. Atkins (15), C. F. Bailey (6), W. D. James (14), J. Motts.
23Peals:Clement Glenn.
20Peals:C. Edwards.
18Peals:G. E. Symonds (2).
16Peals:F. G. May, G. N. Price (7), W. Steele.
15Peals:F. Borrett, J. E. Davis, F. W. Naunton.
14Peals:W. Short.
13Peals:C. E. Fisher, G. R. Newton, W. B. Smith.
12Peals:C. W. Clarke. A. W. Grimes (2), A. T. Morris (12).
11Peals:T. Groombridge, senr., G. Martin, R. Matthews, R. Metcalfe, E. Morris, S. Proctor (2), B. Thorp, W. H. B. Wilkins.
10Peals:E. Barnett, senr., J. E. Groves, C. R. Lilley, E. H. Lindup, W. Shepherd (4), G. F. Swann, S. Thomas, B. Turner, A. C. Wright.
9Peals:W. H. Barber (2), Rev. A. T. Beeston, O. Broyd (6), G. D. Coleman (2), J. T. Dyke, T. J. Elton, F. A. Holden, F. Hopper, Rev. H. L. James, H. Knight, Edwin Lambert, W. Poston, E. H. Stoneley, S. H. Symonds (1), T. H. Taffender, A. P. Wakley.
8Peals:G. F. Alexander (1), J. Austin, H. Barton, W. Keeble (1), A. Knights, A. E. Moore (4), D. J. Nichols (5), J. Potter, J. Ridyard, J. Souter, G. Wightman.
7Peals:G. Chamberlain, G. H. Cross, W. Fisher, J. Goodman, junr., S. Grove, A. Harman, G. Jutson (2), R. C. Loveday, R. Narborough (6), E. Pye (1), G. R. Pye (3), A. Roberts, J. W. Washbrook, F. Watling, S. Wood.
6Peals:J. W. Barker, E. G. Buesden, F. C. Burrows, J. Carter, J. Cotterell, F. G. Dewell (6), F. W. Dixon, S. Evans, E. C. Gobey, G. Holifield, senr., Rev. C. W.O. Jenkyn, E. W. Marsh. F. M. Mitchell, W. Page, A. Relfe, W. Rose, W. Sawyer, H. W. Sharman, J. Thomas (2), C. Wallater, Edwin Whiting, C. F. Winney (4), A. Wright.
5Peals:C. Billenness, C. T. Coles, F. Cooke (1), W. H. Corbett, Rev. C. C. Cox, F. H. Dexter, A. E. Edwards, W. G. Ellis, C. H. Fowler, G. H. Harding, G. F. Hoad, R. Howard, F. J. Howchin, E. H. Lewis, W. Mallinson, W. Miller, Miss E. K. Parker, J. W. Parker, W. Perkins, J. Pigott, J. J. Pratt, R. Richardson, A. Rowley, J. Sharp, O. Sippetts, W. B. Smith, E. J. Tyler, C. A. Valentine, W. S. Wise (3).

In addition to the above, 44 persons conducted four peals; 50, three peals; 130, two peals; and 326, one peal. One peal of Bob Major was rung on handbells by members of the Middlesex Association, in which each member of the band conducted a quarter-peal; and three peals on tower bells were rung unconducted, viz., a peal of Stedman Cinques by members of the Ancient Society of College Youths, and two peals of Minor in Seven Surprise Methods, by members of the Lancashire Association. Two ladies appear as conductors of peals in the year 1913, viz.: Miss Parker, who conducted peals of Stedman Triples and Superlative Surprise Major for the Royal Cumberland Youths, Stedman Triples for the Middlesex County Association, and Stedman Triples and Cambridge Surprise Major for the Hertfordshire Association; and Miss Ellen M. Johnson, who conducted a peal of Doubles in four methods on handbells for the Worcestershire and Districts Association at the early age of twelve years and nine months!


The 217 peals on handbells were rung as follows: Treble Bob Maximus, 1; Stedman Cinques, 12; Treble Bob Royal, 3; Bob Royal, 5; Stedman Caters, 16; Grandsire Caters, 12; Treble Bob Major, 28; Bob Major, 69; Little Bob Major, 4; Stedman Triples, 18; Grandsire Triples, 19; in five Minor Methods, 1; in four Methods, 3; in three Methods, 2; in two Methods, 1; in one Method, 17; one peal of Doubles was rung in eight Methods; two in four Methods; and three in one Method; for the following Associations:-

Number of Peals.
Ancient Society of College Youths5
Cambridge University Guild16
Central Northants Association6
Cleveland and North Yorkshire Association10
Durham and Newcastle Association2
Ely Diocesan Guild24
Essex Association18
Hertfordshire Association12
Kent County Association6
Irish Guild1
Lincoln Diocesan Guild2
London County Association1
Middlesex County Association22
Midland Counties Association8
Norwich Diocesan Guild14
Oxford Diocesan Guild3
Peterborough and Districts Association9
Royal Cumberland Youths6
Surrey Association4
Winchester Diocesan Guild32
Towcester and Districts Association3
Yorkshire Association13


The total number of peals, whether on tower bells or on handbells, rung year by year, since 1881, is as follows:-

Grand total, 34,563.

The following Table gives the first twenty Societies and their positions since 1903:-

Norwich Diocesan2212222131
Middlesex County1121133222
Sussex County377111077673
Midland Counties10555411344
Kent County6933345455
Winchester Diocesan231815109912817
Oxford Diocesan48865667109
Essex County866711111091110
Gloucester and Bristol7111413221211102312
Stafford Archdeaconry18252121131818191913
Worcestershire and Dist20231714814914814
College Youths541011162122221616
Central Northants14141622201620161217
Birmingham, S. M’tin’s11151219151516123118
Ely Diocesan15162424312833343319

Note: In the Analysis for 1912, the Societies were placed in alphabetical order, owing to changes in the classification of peals.

The committee’s report upon the Analysis will appear next week.

The Ringing World, May 22nd, 1914, pages 344 to 346


In presenting our report for the year ending December 31st, 1913, we are glad to be able to state, in the first place, that accounts of peals seem to be sent to the ringing papers, with greater care than in the past, for which we are grateful. We do not have to call attention to peals published without a conductor’s name, though in some cases the conductor’s name has been an afterthought. This may be due to the innate modesty of conductors, but such modesty is really misplaced, and gives the Analysis Committee a certain amount of trouble. We would ask for a little more consideration still, occasionally, and especially that the reports of peals sent to the two ringing papers should be identical. We would also call attention to the long delay, which now and then occurs, between the ringing of a peal and the publishing of the report. There can be no reason why the report should not be sent to the papers immediately, especially towards the end of the year. Belated reports appearing when the Analysis is approaching completion, are very trying to the patience of the committee, the constant alteration of totals being troublesome in the extreme.

It will be seen that the total number of peals rung in 1913 shows an increase of 30 upon the huge total of last year. On examining the details we find a decrease of 53 in peals upon seven or more bells, an increase of 55 in Minor peals, and an increase of 28 in peals of Doubles. The total was abnormally swollen last year by the 308 handbell peals, a number which has dropped this year to 217, showing a decrease of 91. On tower bells there has been an increase of 45 in the case of peals on seven or more bells, of 49 in the case of Minor peals, and 27 of Doubles, making a total increase of peals on tower bells of 121, or very nearly 6 per cent. Of the 118 peals of Doubles, no less than 68 were rung with a covering bell, and it is much to be wished that, where there are six bells in a tower, ringers should not be content with ringing Doubles.

There is a considerable increase in the number of methods which require a separate column in the Analysis. Surfleet Treble Bob Caters, Guildford and Brighton Surprise, Washbrook, Dublin Complex and Double Yorkshire Court Bob Major, Double Grandsire and St. Clement’s Triples have to be provided for; while Little Albion Treble Bob Major has to be added to the “Little” methods. The last has occasioned some difficulty, and we have placed it, not without some hesitation, in the same class with Kent Treble Bob. We find that some difference of opinion exists among experts as to the classification of Little Bob. Our own view inclines to the belief that the difficulties which present themselves in Little Bob Major are hardly sufficient to take it out of the category of Plain Bob Major; and in Little Albion Treble Bob, in like manner, there is hardly enough difficulty to lift it above Kent or Oxford Treble Bob. The other methods fall into their place according to the scale adopted by the Council.

With regard to the points for Minor peals, we have received, and will study carefully, a most exhaustive and illuminating analysis of Treble Bob Minor Methods, sent us by the Rev. A. T. Beeston, from which it appears that the classification of the methods might well be revised in a few cases. Coming as it does from a first class Minor ringer, who looks at the matter from a practical as well as a theoretical point of view, his treatise merits very careful attention. We hope to be able to give this; and, with the sanction of the Council, to make such alterations as seem to us necessary before the production of the next Analysis.


The footnotes to the peals contain, as usual, some interesting information, though we are not always sure that they convey the meaning intended by the sender; so that the following figures can only be regarded as approximate. One footnote, for example, to a name in a peal of Bob Major, states: “First peal in the method, and first peal as conductor,” but we find that a peal of Grandsire Triples was conducted by the same ringer last year; so that the words “in the method” evidently belong to both parts of the footnote.

Advanced age was no bar to peal ringing in 1913. We find three ringers of 70, one of 71, three of 72, one of 74, and one of no less than 86 (Mr. W. Gosling, senr., who rang the 4th bell in a peal of Grandsire Triples on the 26th of March for the Midland Counties Association), engaged in peals; while one who is quite blind (Mr. W. Charlwood, of Pershore), rang the tenor to a peal of Doubles on June 7th for the Worcestershire and Districts Association at the age of 67! Youth is not left behind, however, and we find peal ringers of all ages from 13 upwards, while on handbells they begin to ring peals at the early age of 11 years. But, perhaps, the most noticeable performance in this connection is in the case of a ringer who was not 15, but yet took part in a peal of London Surprise Major. It will not be a “surprise” to learn that his name is L. A. Pye.

No less than 118 peals are reported as being the “first on the bells,” and 31 the first since restoration or augmentation. Ninety-six peals were rung for Church Festivals, which is a gratifying increase, and 18 for Harvest Thanksgivings. Eight peals were rung for “golden weddings,” and others for 51st, 57th and 59th anniversaries, together with a large number of other wedding peals; and 64 muffled peals were rung.

We find 710 ringers scoring their first peal, 87 first with a bob bell, and 30 first away from the tenor; 104 rang their first peal as conductor, and 28 peals were the first by the local band.

Three peals were rung unconducted, viz., in Seven Surprise Minor methods at Oswaldtwistle and at Walton, Liverpool, by members of the Lancashire Association; and a peal of Stedman Cinques at St. Michael’s, Cornhill, by members of the Ancient Society of College Youths, this being, we believe, the first on record on tower bells.

“Farewell” peals numbered 49, “Welcome” 6; quarterly association peals, 9. Then we have peals on the appointment of, or to welcome Bishops, Canons, Rectors and Vicars; laying the foundation stone of a new church, completion of a church, dedication of a village cross, confirmations, etc.; peals in celebration of Royal weddings and birthdays, and to commemorate the anniversaries of the battles of Balaclava and Trafalgar. Peals were also rung by members of the Central Council, the C.E.M.S., the Navy and Army, ten ringers employed at a bell foundry, etc. Two peals were in connection with the demonstrations against Welsh Disestablishment, and one for the settlement of the railway dispute. There was the usual large number of birthday peals, and we must also notice the performance of four peals of Minor in one day by six members of the Kent County Association, in four different towers, the first performance of such a feat.


Ringers depend so much for opportunities of peal ringing upon the goodwill of the clergy, that it must be of interest to note that 29 clergy are to be found ringing peals in 1913, seven of whom were also conductors, and that the number of peals in which they took part was 145, consisting of Cinques 4, Royal 8, Caters 21, Major 52, Triples 28, Minor 29, and Doubles 3. The details are as follows: The Rev. A. T. Beeston rang in 40 peals, of which he conducted 9; Rev. A. H. F. Boughey (16 on handbells), 24; Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn (conducted 6), 20; Rev. H. L. James (conducted 9) and W. C. Pearson, 14; Rev. B. Tyrwhitt-Drake (H.B. 4), 13; Rev. C. J. Sturton, 12; Rev. H. S. T. Richardson (H.B. 3, conducted 3), 9; Revs. E. V. Cox (conducted 1) and E. S. Powell, 8; Rev. E. B. James (H.B. 3), 7; Revs. C. C. Cox (conducted 5) and W. P. Wright, 5; Revs. G. F. Coleridge and H. B. Woolley, 4; Revs. V. A. Creswell, H. J. Elsee, R. P. Farrow, J. F. Hastings, F. J. O. Helmore, R. L. B. Oliver and W. M. K. Warren, 2; Revs. W. W. C. Baker (conducted 1), R. Bond, H. Bowen, W. E. Colchester, B. H. D. Field, C. C. Marshall and E. J. Teesdale, 1.

With regard to the ladies, we find not only an increase in the number of peals in which they have taken part, but also in the number of lady ringers. The names of 30 ladies appear in the records of 114 successful peals in the past year, compared with 20 ladies and 96 peals in the year before. Miss Margery Sampson has earned the distinction of ringing her first peal of Stedman Cinques on tower bells, and Miss Elsie Bennett has distinguished herself by being the first lady to ring in a successful peal of Stedman Cinques on handbells. Miss Edith Parker has also continued her brilliant career by ringing peals in a great variety of methods both in the tower and on handbells. The Misses C. E. Banks, E. Belcher, A. Hick, O. Lumley, E. Matthews (H.B.), E. Pacey, E. Read (H.B.), C. Sparshott, B. Stillwell, B. Symonds (H.B.), F. E. Thatcher and K. C. Thatcher rang one peal; the Misses N. Gillingham, M. Pigott, C. Playle, L. Willson and Mrs. Whittington, two peals; the Misses E. Goodship, E. M. Johnson (H.B. 3) and R. Johnson (H.B. 3), three peals; Miss D. Steel, four; the Misses M. Chillingworth and K. Holifield, six; the Misses W. Hague (H.B. 4), and H. Willson, seven; Miss S. Pigott, eight; Miss M. F. Sampson, 10; Miss E. Steel, 13; Miss E. K. Parker (H.B. 7), 16; and Miss E. L. Bennett (on handbells), 18. The peals were: Cinques 3, Royal 3, Caters 8, Major 40, Triples 38, Minor 17 and Doubles 5. Two ladies rang in four of the peals of Major and Triples, in one of the Minor peals, and in three of the peals of Doubles.

E. W. CARPENTER, Boothby Rectory, Grantham.
J. GRIFFIN, 77, Shobnall Street, Burton-on-Trent.
ARTHUR T. KING, 7, Cavendish Road, Southsea, Hants.
GEO. WILLIAMS, West End, near Southampton.

The Ringing World, May 29th, 1914, page 362



The 24th annual meeting of the Central Council was held at Winchester on Tuesday and proved one of the best attended ever held in the provinces, over 60 members being present, representing 28 societies, of which 14 sent their full quota of members, and 14 were partly represented. Fourteen of the affiliated associations were unrepresented. Sir Arthur Heywood (President) occupied the chair, and the members present were:-

College Youths: Messrs. W. T. Cockerill, T. Faulkner and A. Hughes.
Cumberland Youths: Messrs. J. D. Matthews and J. Parker.
Bath and Wells: Mr. A. E. Coles.
Bedfordshire: Canon W. W. Baker.
Cambridge University: Mr. E. H. Lewis.
Chester: Rev. A. T. Beeston and Mr. W. Bibby.
Devon: Rev. M. Kelly, Rev. E. S. Powell and Mr. A. W. Searle.
Ely Diocesan: Mr. T. R. Dennis.
Essex: Mr. W. J. Nevard.
Hertford County: Mr. B. Prewett.
Kent: Rev. F. J. O. Helmore and Mr. E. Barnett.
Lancashire: Rev. H. J. Elsee, and Messrs. J. H. Banks, H. Chapman and T. Redman.
Lincoln Diocesan: Rev. H. Law James and Mr. R. Richardson.
Llandaff Diocesan: Mr. J. W. Jones.
London County: Mr. E. A. Young.
Middlesex: Messrs. J. H. B. Hesse, A. T. King and J. R. Sharman.
Midland Counties: Messrs. E. C. Gobey, J. Griffin and J. W. Taylor.
Central Northants: Messrs. D. J. Nicholls and F. Wilford.
Norwich Diocesan: Mr. G. P. Burton.
Oxford Diocesan: Rev. G. F. Coleridge, Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn, Messrs. J. Evans and F. W. Hopgood.
Peterborough and District: Mr. R. Narborough.
Salisbury Diocesan: Rev. F. Ll. Edwards, Major C. C. H. D’Aeth and Mr. A. F. M. Stewart.
Staffs Archidiaconal: Mr. R. Cartwright.
Surrey: Messrs. C. Dean and C. F. Johnston.
Sussex: Messrs. K. Hart, F. B. Tompkins and G. Watson.
Warwickshire: Messrs. H. Argyle and A. Roberts.
Winchester Diocesan: Rev. C. E. Matthews and Mr. J. W. Whiting.
Worcestershire: Mr. J. R. Newman.
Hon. members: Rev. E. W. Carpenter, Rev. H. A. Cockey, Canon Papillon, Mr. J. A. Trollope, Mr. G. Williams and the Hon. Secretary (the Rev. C. D. P. Davies).

Apologies for absence were received from the Rev. H. E. Tilney Bassett, the Rev. A. H. F. Boughey, Messrs. C. E. Borrett, G. Bolland, J. Carter, G. Chester, H. Dains, R. A. Daniell, H. Haigh, C. H. Hattersley, P. J. Johnson, J. W. Parker, J. S. Pritchett, S. Reeves, W. Snowdon, W. Storey, H. White. H. W. Wilde, the Rev. W. P. Wright.


Before proceeding to the business of the meeting, the President said he was sure the members would like to express their sense of the great loss that the Exercise had sustained by the death of their good and faithful friends, Dr. Arthur Carpenter and Mr. Nathan Pitstow, two of their members, who had been with them from the first - during the 24 years the Council had existed. No two members had done more for the Council both by their extraordinary kindliness of nature and the persuasive way in which they had managed to bring forward the subjects committed to their charge. They would be missed very much, and he suggested that the hon. secretary should be instructed to express the sincere sympathy of the Council with the families of those two gentlemen.

The motion was adopted by the members rising in their places.


The Hon. Secretary presented the financial statement which showed that the year began with a balance in hand of £77 13s. 6d. The receipts included affiliation fees, £12 10s.; sale of publications (two years), £7 8s.; and interest on deposit account, 19s. 5d. The expenses amounted to £5 15s. 9d., leaving a balance of £92 15s. 2d. to be carried forward, of which amount £50 is on deposit. The value of the publications in hand is £186 9s. 5d.

The Hon. Secretary explained that the amount received from sale of publications was made up of £4 0s. 11d. from sales by the publishers for 1912-13: and £3 7s. 1d. from sales by the Hon. Librarian (the Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn) for 1913-14.- The statement of accounts which had been audited by the Standing Committee was adopted on the motion of the Rev. G. F. Coleridge, seconded by Mr. J. Griffin.


The President pointed out that the retiring hon. members were the Rev. E. W. Carpenter and Mr. H. W. Wilde, who were eligible for re-election. The Standing Committee hoped that the Council would see their way to re-elect those gentlemen, because both were not only valuable members of the Council, but were engaged on special committee work in connection with the Council. If they were re-elected it would leave the Council with 14 out of 15 possible honorary members. It was eminently desirable they should not altogether fill up their list, as at any moment through some gentleman being thrown out from his county or diocesan representation, or some other cause, it might be very important for the Council to annex his services by making him an hon. member. He hoped the Council would be content to leave the vacancy at present.- This step was agreed to, and the Rev. E. W. Carpenter and Mr. Wilde were re-elected.


The following new members were introduced to the President: The Rev. E. S. Powell (Devon Guild), Major D’Aeth (Salisbury Diocesan Guild), Mr. A. Roberts (Warwickshire Guild), Mr. T. R. Dennis (Ely Diocesan Association).


Mr. J. A. Trollope reported on behalf of the Peal Collection Committee. He said they were now ready with the five-part, two-part and three-part peals, and, as they had already had permission, they intended to put the printing of it in hand. Mr. Trollope read the draft preface, which showed the lines upon which the work had been carried out. It was hoped that the Collection would be out by the next Council meeting. The committee deeply felt the loss of Dr. Carpenter, who was a member of the committee.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews asked if it was intended to replace Dr. Carpenter on the committee.

The Hon. Secretary pointed out that Dr. Carpenter did no end of work in the early stages, but in this particular period the Rev. H. S. T. Richardson, Mr. Trollope and Mr. Wilde had done what was necessary, so that Dr. Carpenter would not, therefore, be missed in that sense.

The President said it was extremely desirable that the committee should have all the assistance they wanted, but not any more than they wanted at the moment, because it involved an extra amount of correspondence. The fewer members on the committee to do the work, the better.

The Council decided to leave the printing of the report in the hands of the committee, with instructions to get the work well executed.

The President said the Council felt very greatly indebted to those who did such a great amount of work for them, for there was no doubt the work was extremely valuable, and would be still more valuable to their successors.


The Hon. Secretary said with regard to the Literature Committee he called on Mr. Daniell, who informed him that the work was going on. In the letter in which Mr. Daniell expressed regret that he was unable to attend the meeting, he said he was much disappointed that he had not been able to finally revise the MS., and had not, therefore, been able to submit it to his colleagues, and in its present state it would not be of much good to the Council.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews said he had been to see Mr. Strange, at South Kensington Museum, and asked him whether he could find some rather important documents of bibliography which their President gave him some years ago.

The President: Twenty years ago.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews said Mr. Strange told him that he had the papers somewhere, but afterwards wrote to say he could not find them.

Mr. King said Mr. Daniell had shown him some of the MS., and he could not understand why in the world he should withhold it from them. Mr. Daniell intimated that this year would find it completed, and he (Mr. King) was sorry to find it was not.


In presenting the report of the Legitimate Methods Committee. The Rev. H. Law James read the draft preface of the second volume of methods, which would include Plain Major, and which it was hoped would be ready for printing within the next three or four months.

The Hon. Secretary pointed out that if they printed both the collection of Treble Bob peals and the collection of Legitimate Methods, it would entail a serious expense, and be a drain on the Council's funds.

The Rev. E. W. Carpenter: Is there any particular object in hoarding up the money? We have got it, and it seems to me we may as well spend it usefully.

The Rev. H. L. James: What we have spent on the Minor Methods has certainly done good in the country, and we hope these Plain Major Methods will spread in eight-bell towers as the Minor Methods have in the six-bell towers.

On the motion of Mr. J. Griffin, seconded by Mr. R. Cartwright, it was decided to print the collection when ready, the matter being left to the committee; with the addition of the hon. secretary.


Mr. King read the following further report of the Peal Analysis Committee: The committee stated that they have now examined the Rev. A. T. Beeston’s “Classification of Methods in the Central Council’s Collection which have a Treble Bob Hunt,” and beg to report as follows: We wish first to express our admiration of the very thorough way in which Mr. Beeston has gone into the matter, and wish that the whole of his work could be seen by the Council. Such labour demands very careful consideration on the part of the committee, and that we have endeavoured to give. Mr. Beeston’s plan has been to divide the work of a method into two parts: (a) above the Treble, (b) below the treble. In each of these parts in a plain course there will be five separate pieces of work, to each of which he gives a class value. Adding these together, and dividing by 10, the number of pieces of work in a plain course, he arrives at the class value. But this is not all. Mr. Beeston takes into account other considerations, which he describes under the head of (1) Quickness and (2) Irregularity. The former causes the work to be “chopped up into little bits, and requires greater mental concentration (e.g., No. 12 T.B.).” The latter “increases memory work, and may consist of an odd dodge in the midst of several places in one or more positions, or a dodge or dodges on one side of a place only. These characteristics may supply the fractions wanted to raise a method into a higher class.” Mr. Beeston adds the important note: “The Class Value should be fixed with the competent change ringer in view. Less competent ringers should not be encouraged to rest at anything short of perfection.”

Mr. Beeston has drawn diagrams of all the pieces of work which call occur in “Legitimate” methods, and has assigned each to one of the four classes. He has also added five Legitimate Treble Bob methods - 25 Trowell, 26 Overton, 27, 28, 29; Seven Fourth’s Place Delight Methods - 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Poynton, 35 Grove; and three Third’s Place Delight Methods - 40, 41, 42.

It is right to say that last year we received an analysis on somewhat similar lines, but not in such detail, from Mr. J. W. Parker, of Sunderland, and, as a result of the careful examination of the work of both these gentlemen, we propose to amend the Classification of Treble Bob Minor Methods as follow:-

Treble Bob.- Class I: 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 18. Class II: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 26, 28. Class III: 12, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27. Class IV: 21, 29.

Fourth’s Place Delight.- Class I: None. Class II: 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Class III: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. Class IV: 5, 6, 29.

Third’s Place Delight.- Class I: 11, 13, 25. Class II: 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 23, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42. Class III: 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39. Class IV: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Surprise.- Class I: None. Class II: 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 40, 41. Class III: 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39. Class IV: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.

Mr. Parker has also made an examination of the Plain Methods, from which he disagrees in a few instances from the Council’s classification. We propose on reconsideration to change No. 25 from Class II to Class I, No. 14 from Class I to Class II, and Nos. 18, 19, 22, 27 from Class II to Class III.

It remains for us only to express our admiration of the work of the two gentlemen we have named, and to offer our very sincere thanks to them both, for the help they have given us in our endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory solution of a very difficult problem.



The reports of the Peals Analysis Committee were adopted.

The President reported upon the position of the matters relating to towers and belfries, on behalf of which committee he has prepared a bulky volume dealing exhaustively with the subject.- Mr. E. H. Lewis, another member of the committee, gave an exhaustive and extremely interesting report upon his researches into the question of strains and stresses, and a lengthy debate took place, in the course of which the Hon. Secretary stated that the committee had already opened up negotiations with the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings.

The Rev. G. F. Coleridge, on behalf of the Oxford Guild, moved: “That the Central Council approve and issue a national badge for ringers.” After discussion, the subject was adjourned for a year, in order that the feeling of the Associations might be taken.

The subject of inter-affiliation was introduced by Mr. J. W. Jones, and after considerable debate was defeated.

The Rev. H. L. James’ motion that: “The Superlative Surprise Royal as given by Shipway is the same as the Major,” was eventually withdrawn by the mover, after an amendment had been suggested by the Hon. Secretary to the effect that the Council did not feel competent to decide the question.

The question of the representation of the Ladies’ Guild was discussed, and it was decided, with one dissentient, to admit them on the same terms as any other society. Representation is given to any society with a minimum of 75 members and it was stated that the Ladies’ Guild now numbers 80.

The meeting terminated with a vote of thanks to the President.

In the evening, a social gathering was held at the Guildhall.

We shall continue the full report of the debates in our next issue.

The Ringing World, June 5th, 1914, pages 380 to 381




Mr. A. T. King moved the adoption of the reports of the Peals Analysis Committee (which have already appeared in our columns). Referring to the supplementary report, he said the Council might think it a little early that they should have gone back on their word of last year, and made a few alterations in the classification of Minor methods, but time brought them added experience, and their desire was to place before the Council a result, arrived at with a great deal of trouble, and by the help of the two gentlemen named (the Rev. A. T. Beeston and Mr. J. W. Parker), that should be as perfect as it could possibly be made. He thought, when the figures were examined, they could not but agree with the amendments which the committee had made. The only thing the committee had asked the Council to say was whether they should use the revised classification for the Analysis in the current year. If they agreed, the committee would be very happy to make the necessary changes. It would not make much difference until the methods came to be more frequently rung. The committee felt that their labour had not been in vain, and that they had come to a satisfactory conclusion on the whole - as near perfection as was possible in this subject.

In seconding the adoption of the report, the Rev. E. W. Carpenter specially referred to the footnotes to peals. The compilation of statistics from these notes gave the committee a considerable amount of work which they were very glad to do if it was thought worth while, but he appealed to those who sent up reports to be a little more careful. Specially he appealed to ringers to avoid sending a report to the same paper twice without intimating that the second one was a correction. They should also be careful to see that the footnotes were right. A little carelessness in this matter made the results of the committee’s work not to be depended on, and they could only say, therefore, that the figures which they compiled from footnotes were approximate. If ringers would be a little more careful in sending up these reports, the approximation would get still nearer the truth.

The President said although there were varying opinions as to the value of points for peals, there was no committee of that Council whose labours were so popular with the readers of the ringing papers as the Peals Analysis Committee, because, whether they approved or did not approve, it was of such intense interest that one must spend really hours in analysing the general bearings of that most extraordinary production. He was sure, therefore, that in putting to them the motion, they would allow him, on behalf of all of them, to thank the committee for their labours, and to express to them the very great value which they deemed them to be to the Council (applause).

The reports were adopted.


The President reported on behalf of the Towers and Belfries Committee. The committee, he said, was appointed in 1912, and consisted of the hon. secretary, Mr. E. H. Lewis, Mr. E. A. Young, Mr. J. H. B. Hesse, and himself. They had a meeting at which all were present in the early part of 1913, before the meeting of the Council, and they then came to the conclusion, which was reported to the meeting at Newcastle, that there was some difficulty in drafting a pamphlet expressing the collective views of all the members of the committee. To meet the difficulty he offered to produce a pamphlet, so far as he could manage it, suitable for the purpose in view, viz., to place before the architects of the country the views of ringers and bellhangers in regard to the treatment of bell and bell frames. He offered to do it at his own expense, and in that manner to take his own line, because he was not willing to subordinate his own views to anybody else’s. The Council accepted his offer, and the work was being carried out. Sir Arthur produced an advance copy of the volume, which, he said, consisted of about one-quarter written by himself and about one-quarter distributed between the various other members of the committee, the remainder - not quite a half - being an appendix in which he had reprinted a variety of matter which he thought would be useful in case architects, to whom the work was specially addressed, were so far interested that they would desire to know a little more about the art and interests of ringers. The President then read the preface and table of contents, and added that the publication was not yet on sale, nor were the conditions upon which it would be on sale, or the publisher, settled. In a few weeks they would be able to let it be known exactly what arrangements had been made. They hoped to send it to each of the leading church architects in the hope that their sympathies might be enlisted, and that, at all events, they might be drawn to consider a little more carefully the engineering claims connected with the hanging of a peal of bells. He would like to say, in his opinion, the real value of the book consisted in the more or less summarised results of Mr. Lewis’s experiments.


Mr. Lewis had really revolutionised bell hanging. He had found out things which were not known before; he had proved that things which they believed were of one kind were of another kind, and that up to now they had made mistakes which, from the present, ought to be remedied with regard to bell hanging. It was really as great as or a greater revolution than was brought about by Canon Simpson’s new method of tuning. It was so far more important, in that it was not every ear that could tell the difference between a perfectly tuned bell and one not quite so well tuned, but there was not a ringer who could not tell the difference between a good and a bad going bell, and few church authorities who could not tell the difference between a badly cracked tower and one that did not stand in need of repair (laughter and applause). Continuing, Sir Arthur said he ought to explain to ringers that they might be disappointed with two things. First of all, the ordinary technical language of ringers was to a great extent avoided. In dealing with architects it was desirable to deal with them in the language they could understand, and very few architects would understand a great deal of their ringing “lingo.” He had not gone further than was absolutely necessary to inform architects as to the hanging of bells; it simply dealt with that part of bell hanging to which an architect might have to pay attention, and to no other. It might, therefore, be disappointing to that extent. It was purely and entirely published for one purpose - to try to get architects to give more attention to the progress of engineering in regard to bell hanging. He offered the book to them with his thanks for the confidence they placed in him in entrusting him with its publication, and with the utmost gratitude to those coadjutors, and Mr. Lewis particularly, for the value, if it was of value, which the book possessed (applause).


Mr. E. H. Lewis, another member of the committee, gave a most interesting survey of the investigations which he has been making into the nature of the forces which bells exert on a tower. When the Council met last year, he said, these investigations were incomplete but they had now been pursued, and had given some interesting results. The contention of Lord Grimthorpe was that bells swinging in parallel planes and roped on opposite sides exerted counteracting forces, but the experiments which he had been able to carry out now showed that this particular statement was diametrically opposed to the truth. Mr. Lewis handed round to the members copies of diagrams which he had had specially prepared, showing, by means of curves, the horizontal force exerted during a pair of rounds upon a tower when a frame on Lord Grimthorpe’s plan was used, and when the ropes were changed, so that all the bells were roped on the same side. The importance of the two diagrams, he said, was this. In the case of Lord Grimthorpe’s frame the curve showed a series of violent oscillations; the time for the whole curve being 4¼ seconds, while the time of the oscillation between the extreme peaks was only about half a second. That almost corresponded with the time of oscillation of the average church tower, with the result that they got a cumulative action upon the tower which acted as a spring. The upper curve represented the force which, worried the tower most, and was most likely to cause trouble. In the other diagram, representing the force due to the bells when roped on the same side, the time between the tops of the extreme peaks was nearly two seconds, and that gave the tower a reasonable time to come to rest before the next application of force. Continuing, Mr. Lewis said there were two kinds of forces that had to be taken into consideration - finite forces and impulsive forces. A finite force could be accurately gauged, but it was impossible to measure an impulsive force which was a large force applied for a small time, such, for instance, as the dropping of a hammer upon the toe (laughter). Finite forces might become enlarged if they acted on a spring. An example of this was supplied in the homely illustration of a child jumping on a sofa. If he kept jumping in tune with the springs he would jump higher and higher until the springs broke. In the case of a spring frame the force supplied by the bells was stored up in the frame, and had a cumulative effect. The force of the blow from the clapper itself was very small, and he could not conceive how that could have any action on the masonry. The force on the tower with a rigid frame was the force on the gudgeon, but if the frame was not rigid then they got a different force on the tower to what they got on the gudgeon. Loose frames might cause a very large impulsive force to be given to the tower - a large actual blow to the masonry - which would obviously, sooner or later, cause damage. If the frame be of the spring type, the finite forces might be very largely increased by the cumulative forces of the spring. If the frame lacked rigidity in the horizontal direction, that was if the girders were not properly braced, of four girders built into a wall they might have two pulling and two pushing the wall. There they would get different forces acting on the tower to what they got acting on the gudgeon and tending to twist the tower. In a rigid frame they knew where they were exactly; in a frame that was loose they did not know what was happening, except that they were getting large blows on the tower, and in a spring frame they got the cumulative action of successive applied forces on the spring.


The next step was to ascertain what effect these forces would have on the tower from a purely engineering point of view. The tower might be treated as a cantilever beam, loaded with a single weight at the end of the beam, and from a theoretical point of view, one of the effects would be to get local disintegration of the masonry at the points where the frame was fixed to the tower. This was due to several causes. If they had a horizontal frame that lacked horizontal rigidity they had some girders pulling and some pushing, and that was liable to cause local disintegration. The same thing, Mr. Lewis pointed out, occurred in a frame attached to the tower at the top that was not rigid and moved at the top apart from the bottom. There they would get local disintegration and a liability to shake the light work in the tower, such as loosening the pinnacles. Some architects believed this to be due to the blow of the clapper on the bell whereas a slight shaking in the frame was sufficient to cause the trouble that had been observed. Several architects with whom he had had conversation had, however, only retired to that as a last defence when one had proved to them that in the ordinary motion of a bell there was no blow at all. The blow from the clapper, besides being very small, acted vertically downwards when the bells were rung in a set position. There were, continued Mr. Lewis, three things usually looked into by engineers in the case of a beam, the bending moment and the horizontal and vertical shear. The stress due to the bending moment was similar to the case of a fishing rod when bent. When horizontal force was applied a certain distance above the ground one side of the tower was put into tension, and the other side of the tower into compression. Architects had to some extent gone into that question, but he did not think they had gone into another point. If they took the average tower and worked out the actual amount of tension of the side which was being stretched, they would find that the stress was less than one-tenth of the weight of the masonry above the point at which the stress was calculated so that the lessening of the compression of the one side and the increasing of it on the other was only slight, and he did not think it had any damaging effect on a tower. The total shear was equal to the force applied at the level of the bells, and it had to be remembered that if they had a shear in one direction they must have an equal shear at right angles, and in the case of a tower where they had a horizontal shear they also had a vertical shear, the vertical shear being greatest at the middle point of the wall parallel to the swing of the bells. Towers, therefore, which developed cracks due to ringing, would have those cracks in the side wall, and they often sprang from the top of an arch, where the greatest stress occurred. But if bells swung in both directions at right angles the resultant force was a diagonal force, and instead of the side giving way it would be the corners of the towers. He did not think that particulars of this matter were given in any architectural text books, and it was a nice little problem for anybody to tackle, for it provided a large field for research.


Turning to the experiments which he had carried out by Mr. Taylor’s courtesy, Mr. Lewis said they hung a bell of 25 lbs. weight in a spring frame - he had to allow that it was an exaggerated type of spring frame. Normally, this bell would exert a maximum pressure in the horizontal direction of 35 lbs., but when they put a spring into the frame they managed to get that force up to 1 cwt. Some architects believed that a spring frame diminished the strain on the tower, but he would like a committee of them to carry out similar experiments to that mentioned, so that they might satisfy themselves on the subject. Proceeding, Mr. Lewis said they took measurements to ascertain the actual movements of towers, and they did find that it was such forces as those represented by the curve arising from Lord Grimthorpe’s plan of frame that worried the tower most, while it was forces such as those represented by the second curve of the diagrams which gave the tower the chance of a rest. In one of the towers they visited, the movement was very perceptible, but when measured he did not think it was more than one-tenth of an inch, although anyone leaning against it might have been tempted to say it was an inch, and some might have said six inches (laughter). When architects talked of the movement in a tower, therefore, they should be asked to measure the movement, and they would find that it was very much smaller than they thought. In connection with the exchange of evidence which had been arranged between that committee and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, most of the evidence collected by the committee was of a confidential nature, but this much he thought might be said, and he was sure it would interest the members. The committee had sent out a circular to all the bell hangers they could think of, and with one exception they had sent replies with the information asked for. They could at present say that at least 700 rigid metal frames had been installed - the number was probably much greater - and not one single official complaint had yet been made to any of the bell hangers concerned by any architect or church authority as to damage caused by these frames (applause). The committee and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings were agreed that it was very dangerous to wedge timber frames at the top to the tower - that was a point where it was not meant to be attached. Among the replies they had got to their circular letter, a large proportion were agreed that at least 75 per cent. of the old timber frames they had examined had been wedged at the top to the tower. Those architects, therefore, who argued for timber frames placed themselves in a position of great inconsistency, because it was the inevitable result with a timber frame that, sooner or later, in order to make the bells ringable, the frame had to be wedged to the tower at the top, and the bell hangers were agreed that in these 75 per cent. of cases, if the wedges were taken out, the bells would be unringable. Replying to a question, Mr. Lewis said, the effect of a spring frame was largely to increase the finite forces and not the impulsive forces. The force had to be resisted by the tower, and it did not matter whether the frame was independent of the walls or not. As Mr. James had just suggested to him, if they could remove the force from the tower by a spring frame, they might, by diligent research, eventually be able to hang bells in the air without any tower at all (laughter).


The Hon. Secretary reported upon the correspondence which had taken place between the Council and the secretary of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. He wrote to the society on March 14th last and asked the secretary to give them definite particulars of towers which had been injured by metal frames or modern methods of bell hanging, and as a result, he later on received a list of about six instances, which the committee were now inquiring into, and in connection with which they would send an answer. In the meantime, the secretary of the society had written to him with a view to clearing the ground for any discussion that might subsequently take place, so that they need not waste time in discussing any points on which they were agreed. There were two or three things thus brought forward, and these had been sent round to the committee. The Council would thus see that they had definitely begun to negotiate with the society, and he was very hopeful that they would produce some good effect in the course of time.

Mr. E. A. Young, A.R.I.B.A., said architects had not realised the amount of the forces that were exercised in a tower. When a whole peal was rung off, as in “firing,” it produced a vertical weight of about four times the weight of the bells themselves. If they realised that a peal weighed four, five, or six tons, and multiplied that by four, they would realise what a disintegrating effect that might have on the brick or stone. Architects might, perhaps, be pardoned if they had not realised those excessive forces, and it was possible that bell hangers themselves had not realised it sufficiently. In designing a structure architects always allowed for heavy wind pressure, and if a tower was designed to resist the severe wind pressures, he thought it could easily take up the extra few tons due to the horizontal force in the tower. What he felt was that they did not sufficiently realise the vertical shock suddenly applied to a small area of masonry. In regard to the design of bell frames, hitherto it seemed to have been the rule to design the frame of metal or timber and place it on heavy cross girders, relying upon them for support. In the committee of the R.I.B.A., with which he was associated, about the only tangible result they had arrived at, at present, was that they were all agreed that a frame should be a self-supporting, constructional unit, and should take up the stress and convey it to the wall independent of the girders below. They might alter that view later on, but that was what they had arrived at. It meant that the weights and thrusts of the bells were brought on to a great number of points of support in the tower, instead of on just a few. Mr. Young said there seemed to be something in the air that architects were the culprits, but he did not think they were so bad as they were painted.

Mr. J. H. B. Hesse, in commenting on the value of what they had learned from Mr. Lewis, said there was a tower in Somerset which was reported to have been damaged through an iron H frame having been fixed in it. The authorities went to the expense of having the whole frame taken out and a wooden one substituted. He had, however, been told on good authority that the crack which showed itself in the tower was the result of its having been struck by lightning, and was not caused by the bells at all. There might be cases where a timber frame had wriggled and caused a tower to crack, but he did not think anyone could say that a girder frame had done such a thing.

(To be continued).


With such a lean and unpromising agenda, writes a member of the Council, it certainly did not seem that the Winchester meeting was to be one of the most useful and interesting of the long series. Yet that is just what happened, but it happened so only because of one subject and one man. The subject was bell frames, and the man was Mr. E. H. Lewis. For a good many years reports had come in from different quarters that bell restoration had been hindered by the action of the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings, and by architects who shared more or less their views. Don’t let us do that society an injustice. It has done incalculable good in preventing much wanton destruction of old work in ancient churches; but naturally enough its prejudices are all in favour of old things just because they are old.

We fully believe that at first, at any rate, the society’s objection to iron frames was simply that they were new-fashioned things, but as that was hardly an objection which could stand much proof, these worthy gentlemen cast about for other reasons. And they said like this: In the old wood frames there was a certain amount of elasticity and “give,” and this acted like a spring and, absorbed the shock of the bells, just as a spring saddle absorbs the shock when you are bicycling. When you hang bells in iron, your frame is usually rigid, and the shock goes straight on to the walls, Therefore, they were fully convinced that all iron frame was bound sooner or later, and probably soon than later, to damage the tower.

The Central Council contains many men who, as bell hangers, engineers, and ringers have had any amount of experience of both classes of frames, and they found that not only is the iron frame much the best for making the bells go well, but that there was no evidence that towers actually did suffer. However, ringers are only ringers, and the society’s advisers are architectural experts, and experts are not usually tolerant of the opinions of those they consider laymen. Now comes in Mr. Lewis. Hitherto it had been largely opinion against opinion, and also prejudice against prejudice. He set himself to find out exactly what weight and stress a bell swinging does exert, and what the direction and what the effects of the stress are. Two years ago he told the Council some of his results, and a committee was formed to deal with the matter. The committee was small, but it was eminently fit: Mr. Lewis himself, Mr. Young, an Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects; Mr. Hesse, a professional engineer who has devoted an immense amount of time to studying the problems of bell hanging; Sir Arthur Heywood, whose qualifications everyone knows; and Mr. Davies, the hon. secretary.


The result of their labours is a book specially addressed to architects. It is the work of Sir Arthur Heywood, who is himself bearing the cost of publication, and it contains contributions from the other members. A very cursory glance through it is enough to show that it is destined to be the authority on the subject. At present it is not on the market, and we must wait a short while longer before giving a full review, but we had the privilege of hearing a speech from each of the experts. Of these, that by Mr. Lewis was easily the most important and the most interesting. He handled his subject in a masterly way, and it is difficult to know which to admire the most, his wonderful knowledge of the question, or the ease with which he explained it to his audience. He always had the right word, and he hit to perfection the happy medium between being loftily technical and so unintelligible, and frankly popular and so superficial. We shall hear more of this matter. Meanwhile, his conclusions may be summed up like this: the stress that ringing bells exert must be taken by the tower sooner or later, they cannot be absorbed by anything, and experiments and calculations have proved beyond doubt that it is far better that the strain should be taken by the walls at once, and not indirectly. Make your frames rigid everywhere and build them directly into the walls.

It is significant that the three members of the Council who are also members of leading bell hanging firms, expressed themselves as deeply impressed by Mr. Lewis’ statements, and Sir Arthur Heywood went so far as to declare that the result will be to revolutionise the old ideas of bell hanging.


The other subjects debated were relatively unimportant. After the purely formal business, we had the reports of committees. The Peal Collection Committee reported that they are now ready to print, and that shortly a collection of peals of Treble Bob will be on the market. The Method Committee are nearly ready with the first selection of Major Methods, and that, too, will shortly be for sale. The Literature Committee are where they have been any time these last twenty years, though precisely where that is no one seems to know.

Then came Mr. Coleridge with a proposal that the Council should approve and issue a national badge for ringers. Apparently some of the Southern Associations already issue badges, and would like one universal one. But the majority did not seem to think that we need label ourselves, As Mr. James said, “When merit’s justly due, a little praise then serveth; a good peal needs no frame, a bad one none deserveth.” And if not a peal why a ringer? The motion was lost, and so was the proposal for inter-affiliation. The reason was quite clear. The big societies think that inter-affiliation means loss of revenue to them, and so they promptly sat on it.

Mr. Law James’ motion about Superlative took very little time to settle. He said very little more than that he had already given his reasons partly last year at Newcastle and partly in “The Ringing World,” so the thing had better be voted on.- Mr. Lewis seconded, Mr. Trollope opposed, and then Mr. James withdrew his motion.

The last item was the representation of the Ladies’ Guild. That, too, did not take much time, and recognition was given not unanimously but by a majority of somewhere about fifty to one.

The social side of the meeting was quite as enjoyable as any of its predecessors. Winchester is a delightful place at any time, most delightful at this time of the year. There was no time to see half or a quarter of what is to be seen, but enough to carry away pleasant memories. There was quite a lot of ringing at the Cathedral, including a peal of Stedman Caters on the Monday, in which nearly all the band were members of the Council, and the six at the College were also rung for a short time.

The Ringing World, June 12th, 1914, pages 398 to 400



(Continued from page 399).


The President specially invited the bell founders, who were members of the Council to express their views, and Mr. John Taylor said it would take him some long time properly to digest the results of Mr. Lewis’s researches, and put them into practice. Iron versus wood for bell frames had been before them now for 30 years, and he hoped, by the help of that Council, to arrive at a definite conclusion in the matter. Mr. Lewis had thanked him for the help given in his experiments; he could only say that his thanks were due to Mr. Lewis for the great care he took to explain what he wanted, and the results to himself and his sons. He was convinced that what had been done would eventually lead to an agreement being arrived at between architects and bell hangers. He thought Mr. Lewis’s researches would go far to prove that damage that had been attributed to the ringing of the bells was not due to that cause at all, although probably, where damage had been done by another cause, the ringing of the bells did do harm. The strain of the bells was a mere bagatelle compared with the weight of the masonry in the tower and spire. In conclusion, Mr. Taylor expressed his great appreciation of the work carried out by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Cyril Johnston said he had had some little personal transactions with Mr. Lewis in the matter, and had been glad to be able to supply him with the results of his own observations of the stress and thrust exerted by bells. He felt sure the results of the experiments and calculations would have a far-reaching effect upon the bell hanging industry of the country, and he wished to emphasise the fact that they, of the bell world, did appreciate what Mr. Lewis and the committee had been doing.

Mr. Arthur Hughes, the head of Messrs. Mears and Stainbank, said the subject had never before been probed to the depths Mr. Lewis had probed it. With regard to the subject of wood versus iron frames, architects saw the old frames that had stood in the towers for centuries, and appeared in good condition, but they forgot that it was impossible to get oak to-day as they did a century or two ago. They could not get oak seasoned for the length of time that was necessary to make a satisfactory bell frame. That was where bell hangers had found a difficulty. There was no doubt iron had come and come to stay, and that it was the only material for the bell frames of the future.

The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn asked how many towers were reported, by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings as having been damaged.

The Hon. Secretary: About half-a-dozen.

The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn: I know one of them. It is in my own district, and it is easy to explain how it was damaged. It would have been damaged by any sort of frame.

Mr. J. H. Banks pointed out that in Mr. Lewis’s diagrams, the roping of the bells to lessen the strain caused by a very bad circle, and asked, if the tower was strong enough to carry the bells, what was the use of spoiling a good rope-sight.

Mr. Lewis said when the bells were roped on Lord Grimthorpe’s plan there was very much more movement of the tower than in the second plan. That movement of the tower had to be provided by the ringers, and personally he preferred to ring the bells. He did not care about ringing towers (laugher and hear, hear). Many towers were absolutely safe, and yet the bells were very difficult to ring because of the movement of the tower.

The Rev. E. S. Powell asked if it followed, as a consequence of the experiments that had been made, that in change ringing there would be less stress on the tower, on the whole, than if set changes or rounds were rung?

Mr. Lewis said he had considered that point, and he thought it was quite possible. In rounds they got the curve exactly repeated, and it was the repetition of forces at short intervals which agreed with the oscillation of the tower that affected the structure.

The Hon. Secretary said they owed a debt to Sir Arthur Heywood for the work he had done in this matter (applause). The book which they had seen, although it contained a certain amount written by other members of the committee, and a certain amount of old publications re-edited, was in the main Sir Arthur’s. He had not only undertaken the expense of publishing it, but in the first portion of the book, had given them the valuable results of his life-long experience as a change ringer, and practically as an architect. They ought, therefore, to thank Sir Arthur very heartily for the kindness he had shown them in preparing the book for them, and publishing it at his own expense. As the years went on, he was convinced, it would obtain more and more weight, and would probably have greater and greater effect. It was not at all improbable, too, that it might bring quite a new era in the building of towers, and in the appreciation by the general public of what towers ought to be as well as modifying the views, of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Building, by showing that some of the views they held were not scientifically tenable. In the future he believed they would be able to look back and trace a large part of this change of opinion to the influence of the book which Sir Arthur was bringing out.

The Ringing World, June 19th, 1914, page 414

Canon Papillon, in seconding, said Sir Arthur had given a liberal amount of space in the book to the work of his coadjutors, but the initiative and all the inspiration of the work were his. He started it, and had brought it, so far, to a successful issue in the publication of this book which, as Mr. Davies had said, was likely to have a great effect in a better mutual appreciation of and a better co-operation between architects and the ringing profession in the consideration of towers and the arrangement of bells.- Mr. J. W. Taylor supported the motion, which was carried by acclamation.


The President in replying, said he was very grateful for the vote. As he grew older he kept wondering whether he justified the position which they had honoured him by placing him in year after year for 24 years as their President, and to feel that some of their leading members would speak of him - as their hon. secretary and Mr. Papillon and Mr. Taylor had just spoken - was very gratifying to him, and he felt he was not quite an old denuded stump (laughter). He would like to express not only his gratitude, but his sense of their confidence. Whatever he could do for the Council or for the Exercise at large he most gladly and happily did (applause). There was no resolution to be moved, as there was no report to be accepted. He would like this to be made clear. It was a little difficult for the non-ringer to realise precisely what the new departure actually meant. It was not very long since architects did not even allow bell frames to be fixed at the bottom to the tower, but they had to rest on corbels and be practically free from the walls. But they had gone away from that idea, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had so far modernised their views, that the lower part of the frame might be built solidly into the wall, so long as they allowed the top portion to move in order that the shook might not be taken by the tower. What Mr. Lewis’s experiments had conclusively proved was that it was much better for the forces of the bells to be transferred immediately and directly to the tower than it was for them to be transmitted to a frame which would oscillate, and which oscillations might act cumulatively with the oscillations of the tower, and so make a much greater movement altogether. It had been absolutely and conclusively proved that it was much better to absorb all the force at once before it became cumulative and excessive. A leading architect the other day, after a great deal of argument about rigid frames, said they would not persuade him that to be hit with the bare fist was pleasanter than to be hit with the gloved hand; meaning, by the gloved hand, the spring frame, and, by the bare fist, the rigid frame. The answer, however, was perfectly clear. The blow from the “bare hand” was a very slight one, because the shock on the walls was absorbed at once. The blow from the “gloved hand,” might, however, be a terrific blow. If, concluded the President, they would try to bear in mind these ideas it would lead to a much wider acceptance on the part of church authorities and architects of these principles, because through that Council this matter would be made known. They had, he said, opened up a subject of great interest to the ringing world, and the thanks of the Exercise were largely due to his coadjutors, more especially for the labours of Mr. Lewis (applause).


The Rev. G. F. Coleridge next proposed “that the Central Council approve and issue a National badge for ringers.” He said the idea did not emanate from himself, but from the Oxford Diocesan Guild in which he had more particularly a standing. At the same time he knew it was a matter of interest to a neighbouring Guild, because they were very keen to know that the question was to be brought before the Council. They who were members of the C.E.M.S. knew what a great use a badge was. They knew what it was and what it stood for. It was always a help when one member met another and could spot him at once. It would also be in the case of ringers. Every Guild issued a certificate to its members, but not every Guild issued a metal badge, although some did so. It was first of all for the Council to approve the idea of a badge and then, if they did that, to put the matter into the hands of a small committee, of three or four interested, who would go into it, and either produce a design or select what they considered a suitable badge which they might present to the Central Council next year for approval. As to the issue of it, that would be very easy, as they had their librarian, and the badges could be issued through him to the secretaries of Associations and Guilds, who could officially give them into the hands of their members - of course, on the payment of the full value.

The President: Who would you say would be qualified to wear it?

The Rev. G. F. Coleridge: Every subscribing member of a Guild or Association.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews seconded. He said they often saw ringers wearing badges - badges which, sometimes, they had invented for themselves, and there were also badges advertised by jewellers. It seemed to him that it would be a very good thing to have one badge which could be distinguished at once, like the badge of the C.E.M.S.

The Rev. Maitland Kelly said before they voted it was important that they should know who was to wear the badge; whether it was to notify a certain qualification in ringing, or was simply to notify that a man was a church worker as a bell ringer. In the latter case all the parish ringers in the land would be qualified to wear it. But if, on the other hand, a man had to qualify himself in change ringing in some way or other, it required a little definition. If the badges were issued from the Central Council there should be a somewhat higher qualification than the badges which were issued by the different associations for mere membership.

Canon Papillon said it would be difficult for the Council to draw any line in qualification, other than the ordinary qualification that a man was competent to ring changes. He suggested, that they might issue a national badge for ringers who were qualified members of associations represented on the Central Council.- Canon Baker supported the proposal.

Mr. J. R. Newman asked if it was the intention of the Council to present these badges free.

The President: We are not going to present anything free gratis from this Council (laughter).

Mr. Newman said if the Council was to stand the cost of producing these badges it would be a considerable drain on the funds, as they would have to purchase a large stock and might not sell many for a few years.

Mr. A. T. King said that one practical difficulty was that they could not very well have any qualification admitting a ringer to the wearing of a badge. He might at any moment leave his association, either for non-payment of his subscription or something of that kind, but they could not take away his badge. It would be better to allocate badges to men who served, say, five years in an association. Then he might wear it for the rest of his life, and they would get out of the difficulty of having to get it back again. If they made a man earn it by being consistently a member for a period, they could let him have it without any conditions attached.

Mr. G. P. Burton, in supporting view, said it was a most unhappy allusion that was made to the C.E.M.S. badge, as it was well known that there were hundreds of people wearing that badge who had no right to it at all.

The Rev. F. J. O. Helmore said he did not want, to say a word against the proposition, but he thought in spite of what had been said there were no end of pretty things and otherwise to hang on their watch chains already existing, and they did not want one more (hear, hear).

Mr. T. Faulkner asked, if they had a badge, how were they going to make men wear it. He had a strong objection to being labelled at all, and he should never wear a badge as a ringer.

The Rev. H. L. James said that he believed in one London tower it was recorded that a good peal did not want a painted board, and a bad one didn’t deserve it. He thought the same thing might be said with regard to a badge for ringers.

Mr. Martin Stewart said if they adopted a badge what was to happen to the badges which some of the Associations had already adopted. They would hardly be willing to scrap them. Personally, he thought it was much more a matter for the individual associations.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews suggested that, in, view of the diverse opinions expressed, it would be far better to take the subject back to the associations for discussion, and bring it up again next year. So far as his own Guild (Winchester) was concerned, it was only the Guildford district that had expressed itself in favour.- Mr. F. Hopgood spoke in support of the motion.

Mr. T. R. Dennis moved that the question be deferred for a year, and this amendment was seconded by Mr. E. A. Young.

Mr. J. Taylor said he thought the fact that some associations had not issued a badge showed that they found no necessity for one. He thought the badge of any association would be quite sufficient to enable the wearer to be recognised as a ringer just as well as if the Council issued a badge.

The President thought there could be no possibility of the Council issuing a badge to Associations. All they could do would be to issue a badge to their own members. It was, however, open for them to ventilate the matter, and for the associations to decide what should be done. The proposal to refer the matter back to the Association was a very wise one. His own sympathies were not in favour of a badge, unless it was going to show whether a man attended church regularly or not (hear, hear).

The amendment on being put was carried.


Mr, J. W. Jones (Llandaff Association) was called upon to move the following resolution on the agenda: “That this Council, while not in any sense pledging its members individually or collectively, would, if the project could be set going on a sound practical basis, view with satisfaction the establishment of a system of inter-affiliation between the various diocesan and county associations for purposes of peal ringing.”- Mr. Jones, however, moved the lengthy resolution passed by the Llandaff Association as the one that he was instructed to propose. This resolution appeared in extenso in our issue of May 15th. He said the idea was for a man visiting a place to be able to take part in a peal without being called upon to pay 5s. for life membership.

Mr. King: or a shilling annually.

Mr. Jones said he understood the Council could not put the scheme into operation, but it was suggested that the societies who were agreeable to the proposal should announce it in the ringing papers.

Mr. J. R. Newman (Worcestershire) said he had intended to second the motion. He was instructed to support any scheme that might be brought forward by which it might be put on a practical footing. The motion on the agenda, however, was, he was afraid, of very little use. He could not see what good it could do.

Mr. Jones said he was not prepared to move the resolution as it stood on the agenda. What he submitted to the secretary was what the Llandaff Association requested him to move. What was on the agenda was the fitting together of the secretary.

Mr. Newman said he would move that a practicable scheme be drawn up which could be submitted to all associations willing to adopt inter-affiliation, so that it might be put on a sound footing.- Canon Baker seconded.

The Hon. Secretary said it was quite true that the motion on the agenda was not in the form at first submitted. Mr. Jones sent him the resolution, which was passed by the Llandaff Diocesan Association and he wrote back and pointed out that in the form in which it was presented it was not a motion which the Central Council would pass. In the first place it began: “We, the members of the Llandaff Diocesan Association.” They were the Central Council. Another thing he pointed out was that the Central Council was not a body which could undertake the management of things of that sort. He asked leave to substitute something in the form in which it appeared on the agenda, and he had a letter from Mr. Jones saying that that would do. The Llandaff Association set out a cut and dried scheme which he did not think the Council would adopt off-hand.

The President suggested that Mr. Jones must either withdraw his resolution or amend it to such a form that it could be accepted by the Council, and Mr. Jones agreed to amend it so as to make it applicable to the Council.

The Ringing World, June 19th, 1914, pages 416 to 417

In continuing the discussion upon the subject of inter-affiliation, Mr. G. P. Burton (Norwich) said as a member of an association which would be very largely affected by such a scheme, he must oppose the proposal on principle. He did not think they wanted inter-affiliation at all; it was simply nonsense. There was no real reason for it. If it was wanted simply to make the ringing of peals easier they did not want it, because they did not want to encourage that. The Council had already attempted to prove that there were too many peals rung. If it were wanted in order to help on good fellowship among ringers he denied that it was needed. It was almost proverbial that no other body in the country could show such good fellowship as existed among ringers. From the point of view of the Associations, it was a most mischievous thing. The Associations possessed a sort of asset in membership but that would be taken away by the payment of a mere trifle. His own Association, at any rate, could not accept the financial aspect. They were in the same position as other large associations. Their funds were no longer increasing, but rather were going back, and their expenditure went up, and seemed likely to do so. On the other hand they were losing their honorary members, and that was a matter which every association would have to face sooner or later. They could not afford to give up the least little bit of payment that was made for the distinction which they conferred in their membership. By being separate associations they had in a large measure a very healthy form of competition, but if they had inter-affiliation there would be no more competition, for they would all be at once a member of everything. He felt it was an absolutely destructive policy, and if it was attempted to be carried out it would break up the associations. What they wanted to do was to weld them together and not to break them up. If a number of small associations found it was possible to have inter-affiliation where districts overlapped, well and good, but it would be very hard on those larger associations who might he compelled automatically to come in.

Mr. F. B. Tompkins (Sussex) opposed the scheme on the ground of impracticability. The whole principle, he said, was utterly useless, as it would override the rules already made by each association, or else dictate to them what their rules should be. On those grounds, he hoped the Council would throw out both the amendment and the proposition.


Mr. A. T. King (Middlesex) said he was very much in sympathy with what Mr. Burton had said. If he would find it very harmful to his association, a fortiori it would be more harmful to the one to which he belonged, which was very small. It was not a just or business-like proposition. It was not just because the axiom ought to run through every society that they must not give a stranger benefits at a less cost than they gave them to their own members. His association had expressed themselves very decidedly against the proposal. There was a great deal of talk about the brotherhood of ringers, but the proposal was an effort to work on their credulity. He yielded to no one in cordiality to ringers, but to come in a Lloyd-Georgian fashion, and offer not 9d. for 4d., but 6d. for 1s. was imposing on the credulity of their members. He did not want to throw cold water on any association willing to try the proposal (laughter). Ringers were always welcomed at the meetings of his association, and to ring with them, whether they were members or not, but if they offered them peals they were taking away from their own members what they had a right to expect for themselves.

The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn (Oxford) said they had not had time to put the matter before an annual meeting of his Guild, but it came before their committee, and they were unanimous in saying that they could not possibly entertain it. They did not go any further than the financial side. That was quite enough.

Mr. J. Griffin (Midland Counties) supported the argument of Mr. Burton. If any member of an association had sufficient means to go about the country for peals, he should be prepared to pay the real fees so that the associations should benefit.

The President said the subject had not had the opening up that it deserved. Strong views were held on both sides and it had not been made apparent that one of the chief reasons brought forward was the difficulty there had been in getting subscriptions from members who had been elected in a tower. There had also been a considerable amount of discussion in years gone by as to the propriety of electing members in a tower at all. He had known a good many instances where, although gentlemen had been elected members of an association before starting for a peal because the peal had not been got, the subscription had not been paid, and occasionally the subscription had not been paid even when the peal had been got (hear, hear). That was a considerable grievance to a great many people. The matter was worthy of more ample discussion than they had given it, and he suggested that it should be brought forward next year in a slightly different and more acceptable form.

Mr. A. Roberts (Warwickshire) said he was requested by his association to give the scheme support, although personally he did not believe in it. If a man could go about the country peal ringing he could afford to pay.

Mr. Jones said he was in the same position as Mr. Roberts, but the object of those who introduced it was that a man who had not got much money, but wished to ring a peal with another association might save himself 4s. 6d.

Mr. J. D. Matthews (Cumberland Youths) thought associations would benefit financially. They would be better off if they got 200 members paying 6d. each than if they waited to snatch a dozen at 5s. He thought it would prove a good financial proposition for those associations who took the scheme up.

Mr. Newman said if the Council were agreeable they could draw a scheme up so that associations favourable to the principle might adopt that scheme. That would save having different schemes in operation in different parts of the country.

The President, on putting the proposition to the vote, warned the meeting that if the amendment were lost the original motion also fell to the ground because one contained the essence of the other.

The amendment was defeated by a large majority, only 15 voting in favour of it.


The Rev. H. L. James moved: “That Superlative Surprise Royal as given by Shipway is the same method as the Major.” He said that, as he fully explained his contentions at Newcastle last year, and had since set them out in “The Ringing World,” he would not waste words, but simply formally move the resolution.

Mr. E. H. Lewis seconded the motion, and said he thought Mr. James’s proof was a splendid piece of scientific analysis.

The President said he confessed he was placed in a very difficult position. He thought he knew something about these things, but latterly, after reading the ringing papers, he began to feel not only that he was a fool, but that he did not even know the beginnings of the principles of bell ringing at all (laughter). He was quite content to believe that Mr. James, Mr. Lewis, and the gentlemen who had considered the matter were absolutely persuaded that the Royal was the same as the Major. He was quite ready to take it on trust, but he was not going to take his solemn oath to it himself. If the motion could be put in to some gentler form, that they might be asked to be allowed to take it for granted that it was the same method, he was prepared to agree, but that they should definitely say the two were the same method was too drastic a step which he did not think many of the Council would dare to take. He could not do himself.

Mr. Trollope: I should like to say definitely that it is not (laughter). The question, added Mr. Trollope, was an exceedingly interesting one to those who knew anything about it. There were, roughly, 100,000 methods, when they got up to 40 bells, which had as much right to be called Superlative as Mr. James’s method. He did not know what the opinion of the majority was, but he was sure in his own own mind that Double Norwich Royal was not the same as Double Norwich Major, so far as the ringing of it was concerned, yet he was prepared to prove that it was absolutely the same in construction. Superlative Royal was not the same as the Major; it was not the same in construction. Mr. James’s argument had got several weak places, and the proof was not so complete as it might appear.

In urging his desire to have the resolution passed, the Rev. H. Law James said he wanted it because the method was one of the most wonderful things on paper. It would go on any number of bells. Shipway brought the method out. They did not know how he got it, but in all probability Shipway knew far more about methods than they thought he did. A false peal of Superlative Royal was rung about 1815, and a true one wanted ringing. When it was rung it ought to rank as Superlative Surprise Royal. He wanted to encourage people to ring it. Cambridge had been rung, and they wanted Superlative rung.

Mr. R. Cartwright argued that the method was already named. If Shipway called it Superlative Surprise Royal, he had a perfect right to name it.


The President said he did not think they could endorse Mr. James’s views, whether they were right or wrong. He did not see how their opinion would be of any particular value to Mr. James, and to vote upon the subject would, he thought, be out of order.

A member asked, supposing a peal of it were rung, what difference would it make to anybody, whether they passed that resolution or not?

The Rev. H. Law James: It would save such a discussion as that which arose over the peal rung at Stepney, which was a very fine method. It was called London, but it was not London.

The Hon. Secretary said this was a case where doctors differed. They had “Doctor” James holding one view, and “Doctor” Trollope another, and how were the Council to decide? He, therefore, begged to move: “That this Council does not feel competent to decide the question” (laughter).

Mr. J. Griffin seconded.

The Rev. F. Ll. Edwards said he would move that the Council did not consider that a vote on the question would be in order.

The President said that was a debatable point. As had been pointed out, what would it matter whether the Council passed the resolution or not.

The Hon. Secretary said he admitted that it was a confession of weakness if they carried his amendment.

The Rev. H. L. James: Shall I cut the knot by withdrawing the motion, because I am bound to say that it would be very hard for me to vote against Mr. Davies’s amendment (loud laughter).

The President said they had been 24 years a Council, and they must be careful not to stultify themselves. By carefully considering all questions, and not making fools of themselves, they had obtained a very definite position in the Exercise, and they must be careful not to take any vote which had no real meaning.

The Rev. H. L. James: I will withdraw.

Mr. E. H. Lewis, as seconder, agreed, and the subject, therefore, dropped.


The President explained that the question of the representation of the Ladies’ Guild on the Council had been omitted from the agenda. The matter was postponed from last year, in order that the members might have an opportunity of consulting their associations. At the Newcastle meeting the Council was informed that, although it had been suggested that the ladies should ask to be represented on a smaller membership than the 75 which gave representation to a society, they did not wish to press the matter, and, at the present time that had practically fallen to the ground. Miss Parker had, however, telegraphed that the number of ladies belonging to the Guild was now 80 odd, and she also said that representation on the Council was the desire of the majority of the members of the Guild. The President, continuing, said he thought it desirable that they should take a definite vote as to whether the Ladies’ Guild should have representation or not. The point which Mr. Burton made at Newcastle, that it would probably mean that the ladies would be plural voters, might be true in a technical sense, but many of them were also plural voters in the sense that they belonged to more than one association. The point was, however, of such little importance that he did not think it was worth consideration.

Mr. J. Griffin moved that the Ladies’ Guild be admitted to representation upon the same terms as other associations.

Canon Baker, in seconding, said in his own Association (Bedfordshire) they did not put the question definitely to the vote as to what should be done, but the members gave a very clear indication by voting a lady to be vice-president of the association.


In supporting the admission of a representative of the Ladies’ Guild, the Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn said no Guild or Society owed more to the work of the ladies in the various towers than did his Guild. The influence that had been exerted in the towers in which the ladies had taken part in the ringing and been exceptionally good. The question of admitting them to the Council was the same as admitting them to the towers at all. They had to see that those who came to join a band were keen churchpeople, and had a love for bells in the very widest sense or the word. If they kept out of their belfries those who had those two qualifications to whichever sex they belonged, they would spoil a great many gifts which had been entrusted to them. On the same grounds, he thought they should admit ladies to that Council.

The Rev. C. E. Matthews also supported the motion. He said they had the honour of the membership in his Guild (Winchester) of Miss Alice White, the President of the Ladies’ Guild. There were two lady ringers in his own tower, one of whom took part in three 720’s for service on the previous Sunday.

Mr. A. T. King spoke in favour of the resolution, but asked if they were sure that in admitting the Ladies’ Guild they were preventing any other guild of ladies from putting in a similar claim. They wanted this to be the one and only representative of the ladies.

The President: Why?

Mr. King: Then all I can say is that it would be doing away with the raison d’etre of them belonging to the Guild if you are going to admit others.

The President read the second rule of the Council: “That the Council consist of representative members from all recognised societies, associations and guilds of church bell ringers … numbering not less than 75 members.” They would see that representative members from all recognised societies had a prima facie right to representation on that Council, he said. It did not say anything about ladies or gentlemen.

The Rev. E. S. Powell: Have they not got an absolute right to representation already if they have 75 members?

Mr. King said the rule provided for “recognised” societies and somebody must recognise them.


Mr. G. P. Burton said he must again enter his protest against the admission of the ladies. He came there that afternoon fortified by the opinion of the committee of his Association (Norwich), which was opposed entirely to the Ladies’ Guild being represented on the Council. His references last year had been absolutely justified. The Council had set a standard of peals. Personally he did not care anything about peals, but what peals had the ladies rung? They had not rung a peal so far as he was aware.

The President: You are taking for granted what I think you should prove. What is the standard of peals that the Council has set up?

Mr. Burton said the Council looked up to peal ringing as a standard. Last year he called attention to the fact that the Ladies’ Guild had only rung one peal, and he thought he was right in saying that they had not rung a single peal since, whereas the other associations had rung many. Were ladies, he concluded, suitable creatures to come and sit with the men. When he opened his paper that morning he read that they had just burned down a church (laughter).

Mr. F. Hopgood: According to you they are all criminals.

The Rev. F. J. O. Helmore asked if the Ladies’ Guild could be properly described as a guild of church bell ringers. They were a Council of church bell ringers.

The President: I was under the impression that most of them are church bell ringers

The Rev. H. J. Elsee said for himself he had doubts whether church bell ringing was the best occupation for ladies. His committee however were unanimously of opinion that, if the Ladies’ Guild asked to be represented, and had the minimum number of members, they ought to be admitted to the Council.

The motion was then put, the only dissentient being Mr. Burton.


The President said next year’s meeting would be in London, and at that meeting they would have to consider the next triennium, which would be East and West. For the East it had been suggested they should go to Ipswich. They had deserved it by a great deal of excellent ringing kept up for many years, and he thought there would be no question that Ipswich would be the place. The first year after the London meeting would be the Western meeting and Salisbury and Plymouth had been suggested. It was a great question whether it would not be a good thing to go to Plymouth - there were some staunch ringers at Plymouth. Although it was rather a long way away, they must remember that Newcastle was one of their most successful meetings.

The meeting then closed with a vote of thanks to the President proposed by the Rev. G. F. Coleridge, and seconded by the Rev. F. J. O. Helmore, Sir Arthur Heywood briefly acknowledging the compliment.

In the evening the members of the Council were the guests of the Winchester Guild, a small committee of officers of which had made such excellent arrangements, that an extremely pleasant social was enjoyed at the Guildhall. During the evening there was handbell ringing, quartets from Gilbert and Sullivan’s operas by Mrs. Hetherington, Miss D. Elkins, Mr. R. Elkins and Mr. Edgar Fielder; songs by the Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn and Mr. Cyril Johnston, and Devonshire yarns, told in his inimitable style by the Rev. G. F. Coleridge. Before the close, the Rev. C. E. Matthews proposed a vote of thanks to the Dean of Winchester for the use of the Cathedral bells, the motion being briefly acknowledged by Dr. Furneaux.

The Ringing World, June 26th, 1914, pages 432 to 433

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional