We cannot present this report without an allusion to the fact that it is the first for many years which has not been signed by the Rev. E. W. Carpenter. His colleagues, while he was a member of the committee, know the painstaking nature of his work, and the care which he exercised to make the Analysis an exact and interesting record. We desire to acknowledge in this report, not only the value of his work to the Exercise generally, but the example of thoroughness in all things which he has given to us. We hope he may have many useful and happy years before him.

Although the peals rung in 1924 are fewer than last year, the difference is small, and it can be said that the activities of the peal ringers have been well maintained. Also taking the points value as a guide the quality of the peals rung is fully equal to 1923, the average being 16.740 points this year against 16.736.

The total number of peals rung is 1,860, being 25 less than last year. The tower bell peals show an increase of 15, the total being 1,743, while the handbell peals have dropped to 117, being a considerable decrease of 40 peals.

The totals for the year are shown by the following Table:-

Tower Bells.Handbells.


This shows, when compared with the preceding year, a decrease of 4 in the 12 bell peals, and increase of 3 on 10 bells, also 3 in Major, Triples are 7 less, and Minor and Doubles 20 less.

The Kent County Association has again the greatest number to its credit with 156 tower bell, and 3 handbell peals, a total of 2,486 points, being 1 peal less than last year. The Midland Counties Association have also kept their position as leaders on points, having scored 2,766 for 131 peals, a drop of 361 and 13 peals. The Lancashire Association is the only other society to score the century, with a total of 106 peals and 1,722 points, a decrease on last year of 19 peals and 257 points.

This year the Society of Royal Cumberland Youths has the highest average of points per peal, with 30.6 for 10 peals, the Durham and Newcastle Diocesan Association being second with 29.812 for 32 peals.

There is again cause for satisfaction in the continued increase of Surprise peals, which shows an all-round advance. Maximus is increased from 4 to 5 peals, Royal from 14 to 20, and Major from 241 to 245. The Maximus and Royal are all Cambridge with the exception of one peal each of Leicester, and Middlesex Surprise Royal, Leicester Surprise Royal being rung for the first time. The Surprise Major peals include 89 of Cambridge and New Cambridge, and 63 of Superlative, the first method showing a decrease of 6 peals, and the latter of 9 peals. London is one up with 41 peals, while Bristol has increased from 25 to 32. Other Surprise methods show an increase of 11 peals and include 2 of Guildford, 6 of Norfolk, 5 of Yorkshire, 1 of Rutland, 2 of Rochester, 3 of Pudsey, and the spliced peal of Superlative and Cambridge, the three last named being rung for the first time.

Treble Bob in its variations has greatly increased in favour, 38 more peals having been rung than in 1923, the total being 243, which is made up as follows: 9 of Kent Treble Bob Maximus, 18 of Kent and 6 of Oxford Royal, 163 of Kent and 41 of Oxford Major, 5 Spliced Major peals, and 1 in the Cam variation.

Double Norwich has decreased from 150 to 129 peals; and Plain Bob from 187 to 171 peals. Little methods have increased by one to 6 peals, Little Canterbury Major having been rung for the first time.

Three new plain Major methods have been rung, all by the Middlesex Association, being Edmonton, Marlborough and Winchester Bob Major.

Peals on odd numbers again are almost entirely in the two methods Grandsire and Stedman. It is most interesting to notice that while Grandsire finds most favour with ringers of Triples, it falls off considerably on the higher numbers. This is shown in the following table of comparative numbers in each method:-

GrandsireStedmanErinUnionPlain Bob


Peals of Grandsire have decreased by 20, while Stedman has increased by one, and other methods are seven more.

Compared with the past two years, six bell ringers are on the down grade, having scored 20 peals less than in 1923. Again, as was the case last year, the decrease is all in Minor peals, which are 35 less on tower bells and one more on handbells, the average points value also being lower. To compensate in some degree for this, peals of Doubles are 6 more on tower bells, and 8 on handbells.

Lengths of over 7,000 are comparatively few, being five in number only, as follows:-

10,400 of Kent Treble Bob Major by the North Wales Association; 9,120 Spliced Treble Bob Major (the record length ) and 7,008 Plain Bob Major by the Midland Counties Association; 8,064 Double Norwich Major, being the longest in the method by the Yorkshire Association; and 7,920 of Minor by an independent society.

Coming to notable performances, that of the St. Martin’s Guild of Birmingham may safely be classed as the best. In their arranged twelve-bell week they accomplished five peals of Stedman Cinques, which, even for a first-class collection of ringers is a remarkable achievement. The ladies also were successful in scoring a peal of Stedman Triples without any assistance from the sterner sex, on which they are to be congratulated. We also note a Masonic peal of Treble Bob Major by the Lancashire Association, a peal of Doubles by a father and four sons, the first ‘William’ peal of London Surprise Major, rung by the Essex Association. (This last is supposed to have caused many bills on the railway). The first non-conducted peal of Stedman Triples by the Kent County Association; the first Surprise peal (London) in Scotland, rung by the Durham and Newcastle Association; the heaviest peal of Minor yet rung; and the Surrey Association may be mentioned for Grandsire Caters by their younger members, all being under 21, and a peal of Grandsire Cinques, being the first by all the band.

Below we give the table comparing the number of peals rung each month in the year 1923 and 1924:-


The comparative number of peals rung on each particular day of the week does not vary much from year to year, but the information is of sufficient interest to give it for 1924, as follows: Sunday, 89 peals; Monday, 195; Tuesday, 182; Wednesday, 118; Thursday, 124; Friday, 98; and Saturday, 1,054 peals, the surprising feature being that so few are rung on Wednesday.

The names of conductors of five peals and over are as follows, the number of handbell peals included are shown in brackets:-

50 peals, A. H. Pulling (11); 49 peals, J. H. Cheeseman; 43 peals, R. Sperring; 34 peals, G. H . Cross (5), J. E. Sykes; 28 peals, T. H. Taffender (4); 27 peals, H. J. Poole (11); 26 peals, W. Keeble (4); 24 peals, E. Jenkins; 20 peals, C. F. Bailey (4), C. H. Kippin; 19 peals, G. R. Newton, W. Pye (2); 18 peals, F. Bennett, T. Tebbutt; 17 peals, J. T. Dyke, G. Williams; 16 peals, R. Matthews; 15 peals, J. Flint, W. H. J. Hooton (10), E. Morris (1), J. R. Trollope, W. P. Whitehead (5); 14 peals, E. Barnett, senr., T. Metcalfe, F. W. Perrens (4), J. Potter; 13 peals, F. Borrett, J. A. Gofton (6), E. G. Hibbins, O. Sippetts; 12 peals, C. T. Coles, W. C. Rumsey; 11 peals, C. Camm, W. A. Cave, H. M. Day, T. T. Gofton (3), K. Hart, A. Prince, G. R. Pye, A. Tomlinson; 10 peals, W. Ayre (2); F. H. Dexter, H. Langdon (1), S. H. Symonds (3), A. Walker (2); 9 peals, G. Billenness, E. Guise, W. F. Judge, H. Knight, C. R. Lilley; 8 peals, S. H. Green, L. Head, T. W. Last, J. D. Matthews, F. M. Mitchell, F. W. Naunton, G. F. Swann (2), A. Wright; 7 peals, W. H. Barber, R. G. Black, G. A. Fleming, F. C. Lambert, W. Poston, C. H. Sone, G. E. Symonds (1), E. Whiting; 6 peals, W. B. Cartwright, C. Edwards, G. Gilbert, J. E. Groves (1), B. A. Knights, H. R. Pasmore, J. Perry (2), E. Reader, C. W. Roberts, A. E. Sharman, B. W. Witchell; 5 peals, J. Austin, H. Baxter, J. R. Brearley, F. Cotton, T. Groombridge, senr., A. Greenfield, S. T. Holt, J. P. Hyett, P. J. Johnson (2), T. Lancaster, A. E. Norman (1), H. Parkes, A. E. Reeves, R. Richardson (3), W. Sharples, M. Swinfield, B. Thorp, A. Tout, A. Y. Tyler, W. Welling, J. E. Wheeldon.

In addition to these there were 32 conductors of 4 peals each (8), 59 conductors of 3 peals (5), 76 conductors of 2 peals (5), and 267 conductors of 1 peal (9). There was 1 peal non-conducted, and in the case of one peal of Doubles no conductor’s name was given.

The number of lady conductors is the same as last year, Miss Edith K. Parker conducting 2 peals, and Misses Phyllis M. Moss, Alice Stokes and Kitty Willars one each . The only representative of reverend conductors is the Rev. H. Law James.

The following statistics for the year are compiled from the footnotes to peals:-

First peal, 565 ringers; first peal in the method, 896; first peal in the method on a different number of bells, 111; first peal of Doubles, 23; Minor, 70; Triples 44; Major, 106; Caters, 52; Royal, 104; Cinques, 17; Maximus 8; first peal on six bells, 9; eight bells, 44; ten bells, 69; twelve bells, 40; first peal of Surprise, 38; first peal inside, 44; with a working bell, 4; with a bob bell, 13; away from the treble, 5; away from the tenor, 13; first peal on tower bells, 7; on hand bells, 23; first peal as conductor, 72; as conductor in the method, 47; on a different number of bells, 40; 307 birthday peals; 65 wedding peals, including silver, golden and diamond weddings; 20 peals of welcome, and 26 as farewell peals; anniversary, jubilee and centenary peals number 62; memorial peals, 3; complimentary, 9; thanksgiving, 2; muffled peals, 8; half-muffled, 54 ; 44 peals were the first on the bells, and 41 the first after restoration; 17 peals were rung by the service ringers of the church, 4 of these being the first so rung; 39 peals were rung for church festivals, and 13 peals were the quickest on the bells.

Peals were also rung as a token of respect to the late J. W. Washbrook and George Cleal, and in memory of the late Bertram Prewett.

Below is shown the number of peals rung in representative years since 1881, the grand total since then being 46,642:-


We end our report by calling attention to the column which is added this year to the main table, showing the number of conductors for each society. Conducting is an important branch of the art, and the object of the column is to draw attention to it, so that associations may consider whether the activities of its members can be further extended in this direction.

A. T. BEESTON, New Mills, Stockport.
GEORGE WILLIAMS, West End. Southampton.
EDITH K. PARKER, 17, Wellington Road, Enfield.
JOSEPH W. PARKER, 5, Amberley Street, Sunderland.

The Ringing World, May 22nd, 1925, pages 330 to 331


Balance in Bank62171
Affiliation Fees13176
Sale of Publications (Nil)---
Stock. i.e., £50 14s. 9d. War Bonds, 1927494
Stock, i.e., £50 War Bonds, 1928

Gratuity at London050
C. W. O. Jenkyn (loss on Sales Account)256
E. A. Young (Stationery, Postage, etc.)3144
‘Ringing World’ (Printing)396
Cash in Hand3182
Balance in Bank67115


The Ringing World, May 29th, 1925, page 346



The 33rd annual meeting of the Central Council was held in the Refectory at Chester Cathedral on Tuesday, and was attended by 73 members, Canon G. F. Coleridge (President) being in the chair.

The proceedings opened with prayer, offered by the Dean, who then welcomed the Council to the Cathedral.

The minutes of the last meeting, having been published in ‘The Ringing World,’ were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

Apologies for absence were read from the Revs. C. E. Matthews, A. H. F. Boughey, C. C. Cox, E. W. Carpenter, F. J. O. Helmore, H. Simpson, Tyrwhitt Drake, Maitland Kelly, C. C. Marshall, Major J. H. B. Hesse, Ald. R. B. Chambers, Messrs. W. Wilson, J. T. Rickman, J. Carter, Barton, C. E. Borrett, T. E. Metcalfe, E. H. Lewis, T. H. Taffender, G. Bolland and C. R. Lilley.

At this point the Bishop of Chester visited the meeting, and offered a generous welcome to the Council. He spoke of the ringers’ share in the work of the Church in the endeavour to bring all into the fellowship of the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

The President, in thanking the Bishop and Dean for their welcome and the Precentor for his presence, said this was only the second time in the history of the 37 or 38 meetings of the Council they had been welcomed by a Bishop and Dean. Only at Salisbury, two years ago, had they had a similar welcome.

Arising out of the minutes, Canon Baker asked what had become of the resolution passed last year with regard to urging upon Advisory Committees of the various dioceses the desirability of having a member who was an expert in bells.

The Hon. Secretary said all he had been able to do was to publish a letter in ‘The Ringing World,’ asking the various bands to get their representatives on the Parochial Church Councils, and so, by getting representatives on the various other bodies, eventually get a member on to the Advisory Committees.

Members spoke of what had been done, or, in some cases, left undone, in their own dioceses, and eventually it was resolved to send a direct letter to the secretary of the Advisory Board in each diocese.

The statement of accounts, as already published, was adopted.

The Hon. Librarian presented his report, which showed a small falling off in the sales of publications.

Arising out of his report, it was agreed to repurchase the copies of ‘The Preservation of Bells,’ held by Canon Elsee, to sell leaflets of corrigenda to the three sections of the Collection of Peals at 2d. the set, and authorised the librarian to obtain copies of the ‘Bell News’ for the years 1912 to 1915.

It was pointed out that the stock of some of the publications of the Council were almost exhausted, and the Hon. Secretary proposed that, in view of the increased cost of printing, the remaining copies be sold at an advanced cost of 50 per cent., and this was agreed to.

It was resolved that the ‘Council’s Rules and Decisions’ should be revised, and the revision will be submitted to the next meeting.

The Rev. H. S. T. Richardson reported for the Peal Collection Committee. The work on Treble Bob Major had been completed, and he asked for directions as to what should be done with the material collected. Later, Mr. Richardson reported that the committee had consulted, and Miss Parker had kindly undertaken to type the remainder of the collection, so that it could be placed in the Library with the other typed volumes (hear, hear). The committee did not make any recommendation as to printing a selection of the peals and it was decided to bring the collection up to date by including peals published since the first sections were compiled.- The report was adopted.

There was no formal report before the Council from the Literature Committee, but the verbal reports of the individual members were accepted.

The Rev. H. L. James reported that the Methods Committee were now in a position to go on, and, in the course of the year, to print a selection of some 70 or 80 of the collection of Plain Major Methods.- The report was accepted.

The report of the Analysis Committee, already printed in our columns, was proposed by the Rev. A. T. Beeston.

At the suggestion of the committee, the Council gave an instruction that in future the names of individual conductors and the number of peals they have rung be omitted from the analysis.

A discussion took place on the question of peal points and it was eventually decided by a large majority that in future points be omitted from the analysis.

The report was then adopted.

The Towers and Belfries Committee’s report was forwarded by Mr. E. H. Lewis. In this it was stated that experiments in the welding of cracks in bells were being made.- The report was adopted.

After the luncheon interval the Rev. A. T. Beeston presented the report of the Records Committee, which incorporated two years’ records of new methods rung, and the new progressive lengths.

The Hon. Secretary reported for the Science Museum Exhibit Committee. Matters were, he said, held up because at present the floor and wall space at the Museum was not yet available.- The report was accepted.

A lengthy report upon the revision of nomenclature was presented by Mr. G. B. Burton, and, after discussion, it was decided that the report should be published, so that it might be considered at the next meeting, the committee being thanked for their report, which dealt with a very controversial subject.

This concluded the reports of committees, and, on the motion of the President, all the committees were thanked for their services.

The Hon. Secretary reported that the Cards of Instructions on the upkeep of bells had been printed. It was resolved that a copy should be sent to all Archdeacons in England and Wales, requesting them to bring it to the notice of their respective Rural Deans; and to hon. secretaries of guilds and associations, with the request that they will bring it before their district secretaries and by this means introduce it to all belfries.

Mr. E. W. Elwell proposed the following motion, which was seconded by the Rev. C. D. P. Davies, and carried:- ‘That, considering the future possibilities of Radio, the attention of the Press and Literature Committee of the Central Council be drawn to the performances of “Bell-chiming” occasionally broadcast, as such performances are liable to create a wrong impression of the true nature of bell ringing, and, further, to request the committee to bring to the notice of the British Broadcasting Company all unsuitable imitations of bell ringing which may be broadcast.’

Alderman Pritchett moved: ‘That this Council, as a general rule, disapproves of the augmentation of peals of eight into peals of ten.’- The Hon. Secretary seconded, but there was an overwhelming vote against the resolution.

On the motion of Mr. W. A. Cave, it was resolved that on Page 13 of the Rules and Decisions in the paragraphs headed (a) ‘on nine and eleven bells (b) on eight, ten or twelve bells’ the words ‘in any one method’ be omitted. This was decided on, on account of the new developments in ringing peals in spliced methods.

The Council resolved to meet next year at Ipswich.

The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn referred to the Washbrook Memorial Fund. He said they had actually £115 15s. in hand. They wanted £160 or £170, and out of the sum already subscribed £90 9s. had come from members, towers or branches of the Oxford Diocesan Guild. He appealed to societies who had not yet subscribed to acquaint him with what they proposed to do, so that he might report to his Guild at the annual meeting that the money was in hand and the work could proceed.

Mr. Young gave notice that at the next annual meeting he would move ‘that the time has now arrived when the Council should consider whether the so-called scientific or Simpson tuning is in the best interest of the Exercise.’

This concluded the business, and the proceedings closed with votes of thanks to the Bishop and Dean of Chester, to the President for presiding, and to the Chester Guild for their arrangements.

Later some of the members attended Evensong in the Cathedral and, with their friends, were entertained to tea by the Chester Guild. Afterwards many of them inspected the Cathedral under the guidance of the Dean.

In the evening a large party assembled at the Grosvenor Hotel where a social was held. In recognition of his services in conveying such a large number of the visitors on the Eaton Hall railway Mr. H. W. Wilde was presented with a pair of silver candlesticks.


Excellent arrangements for the entertainment of the Council had been made by a committee of the Chester Guild, composed of the Rev. C. A. Clements (Master), Mr. E. W. Elwell (hon. secretary), Rev. A. T. Beeston, and Messrs. H. W. Wilde and J. W. Clarke, who received great assistance from Messrs. W. Sconce, R. Sperring and J. Swindley.

Members of the Council began to gather in Chester on Sunday, when quite a number arrived in the city from various parts of the country. As usual, a party of Yorkshiremen - not all of them connected with the Council - made it the occasion of an excursion, and their headquarters, the Stafford Hotel, was the scene of a considerable gathering in the evening. Earlier in the day various towers were visited for Sunday service ringing, and many got as far afield as Wrexham, where a fine peal of ten bells hangs in one of the most noble bell towers in Great Britain.

On Monday ringing at the Cathedral, with an inspection of this edifice, occupied many ringers the better part of the morning. The magnificent pile, upon the restoration of which vast sums have been spent in the last half century, was visited during the day by thousands of people, and the manner in which the crowds were provided for by the Cathedral staff, from the Dean downward, and the manifestations of the work carried on, were proof in itself that the venerable building, which has grown from a Monastic church of the Benedictines, is a living centre of Church life.

Some of the visitors scored a peal at the Church of St. Mary-within-the-Walls, and early in the afternoon a party, numbering about 70, including many ladies, assembled at the Blossoms Hotel prior to an excursion by motor launch on the River Dee to Eccleston and Eaton Hall. They had the privilege of being shown over the Duke of Westminster’s famous mansion and the beautiful gardens, and what interested them not least was the tiny railway, which runs through the grounds, and which was laid down by the late Sir Arthur Heywood. The engines and rolling stock were made at Sir Arthur’s workshop at Duffield, and, although on this occasion the haulage was undertaken by a petrol engine, the original steam locomotive was inspected with much interest. There are some miles of track, and over this the visitors were taken in two parties in the miniature carriages, the engine driver being another well-known ringer, Mr. H. W. Wilde, who is responsible for the upkeep of the railway, and whose kindness was much appreciated. Some of the party afterwards visited Eccleston Church to ring, and then made their way back to Chester, some having to ‘foot it,’ on account of the heavy Bank Holiday traffic on the river.

At the Blossoms Hotel an informal social was held in the evening.

The Ringing World, June 5th, 1925, pages 361 to 362, correction June 12th, 1925, page 378



At the meeting of the Central Council, at Chester on Whitsun Tuesday, the Associations were represented as follows:-

Ancient Society of College Youths: Messrs. A. A. Hughes and T. Faulkner.
Bath and Wells Association: Mr. A. E. Coles.
Bedfordshire Association: Rev. Canon W. W. C. Baker and Mr. A. E. Sharman.
Chester Diocesan Guild: Rev. A. T. Beeston, Messrs. E. W. Elwell, H. Fairclough and J. Ashmole.
Devonshire Guild: Rev. E. S. Powell.
Dudley and District Guild: Mr. S. J. Hughes.
Durham and Newcastle Diocesan Guilds: Messrs. W. Story and W. H. Barber.
Ely Diocesan Association: Mr. T. R. Dennis.
Essex Association: Messrs. W. J. Nevard, G. R. Pye and E. Butler.
Gloucester and Bristol: Messrs. W. A. Cave, E. Bishop and E. Guise.
Kent County Association: Messrs. T. Groombridge and E. Barnett.
Ladies’ Guild: Miss E. K. Parker.
Lancashire Association: Rev. Canon H. J. Elsee, Messrs. H. Chapman, J. R. Taylor and W. E. Wilson.
Lincoln Diocesan Guild: Rev. H. Law James, Rev. H. T. Parry and Mr. R. Richardson.
Llandaff and Monmouth Diocesan Association: Messrs. J. W. Jones and W. Bolton.
London County Association: Mr. A. D. Barker.
Middlesex County Association: Messrs. F. A. Milne, C. T. Coles and W. H. Hollier.
Midland Counties Association: Messrs. Pryce Taylor and A. Coppock.
North Wales Association: Mr. A. J. Hughes.
Norfolk Guild: Messrs. A. Coleman and G. P. Burton.
Oxford Diocesan Guild: Rev. Canon G. F. Coleridge, Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn, Messrs. F. W. Hopgood and J. Evans.
Peterborough Diocesan Guild: Messrs. F. Wilford and J. J. Jutson.
Royal Cumberland Youths: Mr. J. Parker.
St. Martin’s Guild: Mr. A. Paddon Smith.
Salisbury Diocesan Guild: Rev. F. Ll. Edwards and Mr. T. Hervey Beams.
Stafford Archdeaconry: Messrs. H. Knight and T. J. Elton.
Suffolk Guild: Rev. H. Drake and Mr. C. Mee.
Surrey Association: Messrs. C. F. Johnston and C. Dean.
Warwickshire Guild: Messrs. H. Argyle and A. Roberts.
Winchester Diocesan Guild: Messrs. G. Williams and A. H. Pulling.
Worcester and Districts Association: Messrs. T. J. Salter and W. Short.
Yorkshire Association: Messrs. P. J. Johnson and J. Cotterell.
Hon. members: Revs. C. D. P. Davies, H. S. T. Richardson, Messrs. J. S. Pritchett, H. W. Wilde, J. Griffin, J. George, J. W. Parker, J. A. Trollope and E. Alex Young (hon. secretary and treasurer).

The Dean of Chester opened the meeting with prayer, and in the course of his welcome to the members, he said he hoped we should recover presently the notion in England that the Cathedrals did not belong to a group of old gentlemen, but really were the Mother Church of each Diocese, the Bishop being the head of it, the Dean and Chapter trustees, and the Cathedral belonging to everybody. That Cathedral was the one great building in the county that really belonged to everybody. We were at last beginning to feel that it did. He was glad to see that the great Cathedral of Canterbury, which ought to lead them all, had now posted on its doors a notice - more magnificently printed than they in Chester put on their doors five years ago (applause). He was told in Canterbury four years ago it was quite impossible to throw the Cathedral open: it was all right for a little cottage, but a great place like Canterbury would never be able to throw itself open to the public. He was only hoping the great Metropolitan Cathedral of the North would not stick, and be so stodgy that it would not come in at the tail end. After the Dissolution, Chester Cathedral fell into evil plight as far as money was concerned. The Dean and Canons were only able to carry on by selling their big bell. That big bell now was hanging, he thought, in the tower of Conway Church. It was sold from Chester Cathedral. It was a sign of better days that two years ago in Chester they made their tower safe and sound and now they could once more ring their bells. They welcomed the Council very much, and hoped they would have a very happy Council meeting.


The Lord Bishop, who arrived a few minutes later, said he was only discharging what seemed to him a very natural debt to discharge when he came there, and that was to thank them for all they were doing for the church. Wherever one went now, one was conscious of the enormous improvement in that part of church work, which they represented. The bells were more beautifully rung than ever, there was more reverence among the bell ringers, and all felt they were among the true workers of the church. There used to be bell ringers who, some of them, kept out of the church. He felt now they were heart and soul working together for the glory of God and the welfare of the holy church. He bid them a most hearty welcome to Chester. He thought they could not have been at the Cathedral on Monday without feeling pretty clearly what it was they were out for. They really were out to try and make people feel the Cathedral was really and truly the central house of God in the Diocese, to which all were welcome, and in which they hoped all would find themselves at home. For those present on Monday it must have been a rather reassuring experience. They had the place full from morning to evening, and it was a delightful crowd to be among. One seemed to find them almost pathetically grateful for the sort of freedom which they enjoyed in God’s house. He was specially glad, because he felt that in all this they had the true sympathy of those whom the Council represented. They heard small bells and great bells, but this art of change ringing was theirs alone. He thought it must give them extra pleasure to cultivate what all along had been a traditional English art.

The President (Canon G. F. Coleridge) said he needly hardly assure them how deeply the members of the Council, with some of whom he had been associated 37 years, appreciated the kindness of the Lord Bishop in welcoming them. The Council had met 37 or 38 times, and this was only the second occasion on which they had been welcomed by the Bishop and Dean of a Diocese. Up till two years ago no notice was taken of the Central Council meeting, except by Sir Arthur Heywood on the occasion of the triennial London meeting. At Salisbury, two years ago, when they met in the Chapter House, the Bishop, Dean and Archdeacon welcomed them. That day in Chester they had the Bishop, Dean and Precentor (applause).

The Bishop and Dean then left the meeting.


Canon Baker, referring to the minutes of the last meeting, asked what happened with reference to the resolution urging the appointment on each Diocesan Advisory Committee of a person with a knowledge of bells and bell ringing. Was the resolution sent to the Secretaries of the Diocesan Conferences?

The Hon. Secretary (Mr. E. A. Young) said he thought the best way of meeting the resolution was to put a letter in the ‘Ringing World,’ which he did early in the year, pointing out the desirability of ringers getting representatives elected on the Church Parochial Councils, and thus eventually, through the various stages, get a representative on the Advisory Committee. That was all he felt he could do.

Canon H. J. Elsee said what was wanted was to reach the Diocesan authorities in each case. The Parochial Councils had very little to do with Advisory Committees, except when they applied for a faculty themselves. He was not quite sure a request from a Diocesan or County Association would receive the same consideration as one from that Central body. He thought some application of that sort was to be made in the name of the Council to the Advisory Committee in each diocese.

The Rev. C. D. P. Davies said in the Winchester Guild the Rev. C. E. Matthews was on the Advisory Committee for the diocese.

Mr. C. T. Coles said he believed no such Advisory Committee existed in the London diocese.

Mr. F. Wilford said in the Peterborough Diocese they had not known which was the right way to go to work. They had made several inquiries, but they had not known what procedure to adopt. They were anxious it should be done, and that they should have a representative.

Mr. E. W. Elwell said the Chester Guild had taken the matter up with the authorities, but it was rather hanging fire at present.

Canon Baker pointed out that the Advisory body consisted of experts appointed by the Chancellor of the Diocese to advise on applications for faculties, and what they (the Council) wanted was that they should have a representative who could represent the point of view of the ringers, and who knew something about bells. In the case of his own diocese, the committee had come to some extraordinary conclusions. If a letter was sent to the Secretary of the Diocesan Conference he would pass it on to the Advisory Committee.

The Rev. H. Drake said that in the diocese of St. Edmundsbury their difficulty was that, although they had made application and had the senior Archdeacon supporting them, they had not been able to get a member on the Advisory Committee. He thought if they could get the support of the Central Council it would help them greatly. He thought there would be no difficulty in each association secretary getting the information as to the Advisory Committee, and sending on a letter from the Council to the right quarter.

The hon. secretary undertook to send out a letter at the earliest opportunity.

The Hon. Secretary and Treasurer presented the balance sheet for the year, as already printed. It was adopted, on the motion of the Rev. H. Law James, seconded by Mr. J. Griffin, members of the Standing Committee, who had carried out the audit.

The Hon. Secretary said no associations had dropped out, but he was glad to say Sussex had rejoined them, and they had also got as a new association, the Swansea and Brecon Guild (hear, hear).


The Hon. Librarian’s statement of accounts showed receipts amounting to £8 4s. 3d. from the sale of publications, and expenditure of £10 9s. 8½d., leaving an adverse balance of £2 5s. 5½d.

In his report, the Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn said: ‘The sale of publications has not been quite so good as it was in the previous year, the number sold being 250, as against 265. The sum realised by the sale, £8 4s. 3d., of which £2 6s. 10d. came in from the “on sale or return” account as against 9s. only in the previous year. This account was much helped by one gentleman who sent an order for one pound’s worth of books to be disposed of in one way or another; an example that might be followed with advantage. One return came to hand after the account had been made up, and the amount 3s. 4d. will be carried forward. It cost the Council £2 5s. 6d. to effect these sales. The popular work again was the “Collection of Minor Methods,” which promises well for the sale of Major Methods when published. Having declared that “On the Preservation of Bells” was out of print, I was, in November last, offered at cost price a matter of 80 copies by Canon Elsee. I bought 24 copies as a speculation for the Council, and reinstated the book in the advertisement notice, and have since sold 13 copies. If the Council wishes I will buy up the remainder. It would be well to consider the bringing up to date the book “Rules and Decision of the Council,” as the last entry therein is dated 1903. The Corrigenda of the three books, “Collection of Peals,” is now completed, the last being only recently finished. This means that the peals in these book are now proved. The thanks of the Council are due to the following: Revs. H. L. James, H. S. T. Richardson, E. S. Powell, and Messrs. J. A. Trollope and H. W. Wilde. The results of their work have appeared from time to time in the “Ringing World,” and are now printed in leaflet form. There should be a ruling of the Council as to the disposal of these. It has been represented to me that whereas the Council possesses a complete Press record from 1871 to the present day, it has not those numbers of “Bell News” when that paper and the “Ringing World” were running together. I should like to know whether the Council wishes me to try and obtain these numbers, namely, 1912-1915, inclusive.’

The Council resolved that the Librarian should repurchase the copies of ‘On the Preservation of Bells,’ now in the hands of Canon Elsee.

The Standing Committee having recommended that the Corrigenda to the Collection of Peal should be sold at 2d. for the set of three leaflets, this was agreed to; it being pointed out that anyone sending for a new set of the books would receive the Corrigenda free of charge.

The Librarian was authorised to obtain and have bound the issues of ‘The Bell News’ for the years 1912 to 1915.

The Hon. Secretary pointed out that some of the publications of the Council were either out of print, or nearly so. As treasurer, he noticed that their balance did not progress much, and that they were getting a little loss on their sales: On the other hand, when they wanted to reprint they would find that the cost of printing had considerably increased, and he thought the Council should consider the advisability of increasing the charge of the present stock by, say, 50 per cent. It would be something towards meeting the extra cost when they had to reprint.

Mr. P. J. Johnson said they should approach the matter carefully. One got the impression that it was difficult to maintain the circulation of the Council’s publications, and while they might rashly decide to increase the charge for the publications, they might find that it would result in the circulation falling off. He felt that all the while they could carry on without increasing the cost to the members of the Exercise it would be advisable to do so. It ought not to be the special function of the Council to make a profit on these things.

The Hon. Secretary’s suggestion was carried by a large majority.

It was resolved, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee, that the Council’s ‘Rules and Decisions’ be brought up to date, and submitted for approval by the Council at the next meeting, the task being entrusted to the Literature and Press Committee, with the hon. secretary, it being understood that the Methods Committee would, in the meantime, revise their portion of the matter.

The Ringing World, June 12th, 1925, pages 377 to 378


The President (Canon Coleridge) announced that the honorary members retiring this year were the Rev. A. H. F. Boughey (a past president), Mr. J. W. Parker, the Rev. H. S. T. Richardson, also Mr. H. Chapman who was an honorary member, but who is now returned as a representative for Lancashire. That left them one vacancy on the honorary members’ list. They had always felt it desirable that they should have one vacancy in hand in case of an emergency arising in which they wanted to put some notable man on some committee, who might be of inestimable use in the hour of necessity.

The three first named were re-elected.

The following new members were introduced to the president: Mr. E. Guise (Gloucester and Bristol), Mr. J. J. Jutson (Peterborough) and Mr. A. J. Hughes (North Wales).

The Council then turned to the reception of the reports of committees. The Rev. H. S. T. Richardson, on behalf of the Peal Collection Committee, apologised for the delay that had taken place in connection with the work but said the best apology was to ‘produce the goods.’ This he was now able to do. It was an enormous pile of manuscript, and if the Council would decide what was to be done with it he would see that it was done as soon as possible. What remained was one part of the peals of Treble Bob. There was one other thing that had been in his mind. The collection was begun originally by Mr. Trollope a long time ago. A good deal more had been published since, and he thought the collection should be brought up to date. When the last instalment was produced, he noticed a criticism of the collection on the ground that it was not especially a conductor’s collection, but the aim, it seemed to him, was to show the history of composition in the method, and that had been successfully accomplished. Its utility to conductors was not the chief thing. The question was whether it would be possible to print the whole thing. He thought that was very doubtful, but if ever that were to come to pass it would be a good thing if the collection were brought up to date.

The Rev. H. Law James suggested it might be possible to print a selection for the use of conductors.

The President said they were greatly indebted to the committee for all they had done, and he was sure the Council would wish to carry out the committee’s wishes as far as possible. He suggested that the members of the committee should have a further consultation and report later.

Subsequently, the Rev. H. S. T. Richardson said he had consulted the members of the committee. Miss Parker had promised to type the collection (hear, hear). The committee did not recommend making a selection for printing, that was a matter for the Council to settle. It was proposed to collect the peals that had been published since the collection was made, to bring it up to date.

The President said the Council were deeply grateful to Miss Parker for her kindness in under taking to type the collection. They knew what she had done in the way of typing in the past (applause).


Mr. G. P. Burton, asked to report on behalf of the Literature and Press Committee, said he really did not know anything about the business. In recent years Mr. Willson had acted as convener, and drawn up the report. This year, he (Mr. Burton) had heard nothing from Mr. Willson. All he had had was a post card from Mr. Matthews, and a bundle of papers from the secretary.

Mr. J. Griffin said he received a letter from Mr. Willson telling him he would not be able to attend the meeting. In this letter he said it might be asked why he had not submitted a report for the committee. The reason was he was not the convener. The Rev. C. E. Matthews was the convener, and he had suggested that in his (Mr. Willson’s) absence Mr. Paddon Smith should take his place. Mr. Willson had added hat he had taken the initiative for three year, and, after all, someone else ought to do their bit. Mr. Paddon Smith would be a good man (applause).

Mr. A. Paddon Smith caused much amusement by relating what he knew of the committee’s affairs. All he had had, he said, was a package of papers from the hon. secretary and a post card from the Rev. C. E. Matthews thanking him for a letter which he had never written, and asking him to report in Mr. Willson’s place. Although he had written to Mr. Matthews saying that there must have been some misapprehension, as he had never written to him, he had had no reply. What was there more to report? (laughter).

The Rev. F. Ll. Edwards said during the year things which had been brought up by correspondence in local newspapers had been effectually dealt with, and another thing that had come under the notice of the committee was the admirable action of members of the Devonshire Guild in supplying regularly to local papers instructive and interesting articles on ringing matters. He thought this was a most admirable movement to have initiated, and thought the example might be followed in other districts.


The Rev. H. Law James reported for the Methods Committee. He said they were now in a position to print a selection of the Plain Major Methods. Mr. Trollope and himself had had a great deal of trouble, and had had practically to re-do the work, because they had not been able to get anything from Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis was a very busy man, but that morning Mr. Young had handed him the papers which he (the speaker) sent to Mr. Lewis two years ago. Mr. Trollope and he would look these papers through again, before going any further, and he hoped they would be in a position to print a selection of 70 or 80 methods very shortly.

Mr. J. A. Trollope said Mr. James and himself made up their minds that they would not come to the Council this year unless they could hand in the complete manuscript, ready for printing. The collection had been entirely rewritten, but it was possible there were things in the original draft that had been overlooked in the new; therefore, they wanted time to look through the papers that had now come back from Mr. Lewis. They felt ashamed of the way they had had to come there year after year and say they were no further forward. Criticism, Mr. Trollope continued, was sometimes made of the proposal to publish these methods. It was said that ringers already had more methods to ring than they would ever ring. The committee did not expect that these Major Methods would be taken up with the rapidity of the six-bell methods, but they must remember that before the six-bell collection was published six-bell ringers had about 20 or 30 methods. Now they had some hundreds of Minor methods, and every one had been rung, which showed that the publication of the book had done an immense amount of good. When the six-bell book was published it was said ‘People will not ring the methods,’ but the book had ‘taken on,’ and he hoped the same thing would result with the new collection. He strongly recommended bands, when they wanted to break fresh ground, and get off the beaten track, not necessarily to aim at Surprise methods. There were methods which could be rung easily if they could ring Double Norwich, whereas they might break their teeth on Bristol and London. Such methods were those which were rung at Willesden.

Mr. G. P. Burton asked the committee to recollect if these methods were printed there was another committee which might have something to say on the naming of them. He thought there was no analogy between the six and the eight bell methods. They would never get ringers to ring all these hundreds of methods on eight bells. In the methods that were being rung every day, they had all the quality that ringers wanted or ever would want. He suggested that the Council should not waste their money in printing these methods. It would be simply a scrap book.

Mr. E. Barnett thought that was a very narrow way of looking at the matter.

Mr. T. H. Beams supported what Mr. Burton had said with regard to the naming of these methods. Once the names were printed they would be pretty well sure to stick to them.

The Rev. H. Law James said the committee were ordered at the Lincoln meeting to print the methods and attach the names. They had attached the names, and were going to print them.

The Rev. H. Drake said the Nomenclature Committee only asked to be consulted before the names were printed.

The Rev. H. Law James: You were appointed to revise the names of the Minor methods (‘No’).

The report was adopted.


The report of the Analysis Committee having been printed in ‘The Ringing World,’ its adoption was moved by the Rev. A. T. Beeston. He said they had not had one peal published twice during the year, and he thanked the conductors for that attention. They had had a little trouble through the publication of peals having been delayed for some month after being rung. He ventured to say that such long delay in publication should not take place again. The Council, he continued, would notice that the committee had introduced a new column into the analysis, indicating the number of conductors who had conducted peals for each association. There was in their report every year a long list given of conductors with the number of peals they had conducted. This was a table that required a great deal of trouble, and the committee suggested that the Council should agree to drop that part of the report, because the committee felt that it was somewhat of a personal thing; it indicated the performances of individual members of the Exercise, and they felt that the analysis was for the Exercise as a whole, and not for any particular individuals thereof.

Mr. J. W. Parker seconded.

Mr. C. T. Coles suggested some minor alterations in regard to the analysis, and went on to raise the question of the number of points allotted to Middlesex and Leicester Surprise Royal respectively. Although he had not rung Leicester, he had rung Middlesex, but he did not think members of the committee had rung either of these methods. After an examination of Leicester Surprise Royal, he had come to the conclusion that it ought not to have any more points than Middlesex, as there was little difference in the two.

The Rev. H. Law James: I move that it be an instruction to the Analysis Committee to omit all points (hear, hear). It is hopeless, and they are absolutely valueless.

Mr. C. T. Coles seconded, and said that would meet his criticism.

Mr. W. A. Cave supported the motion. He said some time ago they rang at Bristol a peal of Clifton Surprise Royal. He was not going to argue whether it was harder or easier than other Surprise Royal methods, but as one of that band he could say they would not think of offering a suggestion as to the number of points to be allotted. They rang the peal, and that was all they wanted.

Mr. A. H. Pulling said he came prepared to propose that the points be abolished. It gave the committee a lot of unnecessary work, for it was impossible to compare one peal with another.

Mr. J. W. Parker said points marked the progress of a Guild or Association, and the quality of the ringing. There was nothing else which marked that, and for that reason he thought they should retain them, and possibly try to improve the way in which they were awarded.

The Rev. C. D. P. Davies said points had had a good long innings, and he thought they might be bowled out.

The Rev. A. T. Beeston said the Council had already decided that points shall be given, and he asked if the rule could be rescinded without due notice.

The President: Not if it is a rule.

The Rev. A. T. Beeston said with regard to the criticism of Mr. Coles, the Council decided the points. A table of point values was drawn up by their old colleagues, was discussed by the Council, and passed. The table of values was published in the ringing papers, and it was that table which guided them in allotting points to peals. With regard to Leicester and Middlesex Surprise Royal, the latter was a double method, and the former a compound method, and the Council had decided that a compound Surprise method was of more value in points than a double method. That was the reason why Leicester had 63 points, and Middlesex only 60.

It was pointed out that the scale of points was not a ‘rule,’ but a ‘decision,’ and as such, the President held, could be altered without previous notice.

On being put to the meeting, the resolution to omit the points from the Analysis in future, was carried by a large majority.

The President said he remembered very well indeed the question of points being introduced by Mr. Attree, of the Sussex Association. He (the speaker) was dead against it from the beginning, and he was delighted to see the resolution carried now. It was perfectly true what was so often said that a peal of Grandsire Triples by a young band, or the first peal they rang in a new method they had mastered, was far better in value than a peal of London or Bristol Surprise rung by a band who were ringing such peals every week (applause).

The report was then adopted.


The Towers and Belfries Committee’s report was contained in a letter received from Mr. E. H. Lewis, who said the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had raised the question of welding cracks in bells. The committee were not able to be very helpful, although Mr. Fairclough thought such a practice was possible. Two cases were reported in the technical press, and were said to have been successful. As, however, it is doubtful whether these bells had to stand the same treatment as our ringing bells, he could not say what the effect would be on bells hung for ringing. He asked for information of any cases of welding of which the members of the Council had knowledge and in the meantime he was, in conjunction with the S.P.A.B., carrying out some experiments on the change in crystalline structures in bell metal caused by welding.

The Hon. Secretary said the question was being investigated by the S.P.A.B. with a view to saving some of our mediæval bells. He always understood that it presented many difficulties, but their bellfounding friends would know all about the difficulties. He knew it had been said that cracks had been cured by this process. He was told many years ago of a tenor that was mended by a German. The process was said to be a secret one, and the man locked himself in the tower, and no one saw or knew what he did. Whether this process had been developed he could not say.

Mr. Fairclough said there was a firm in Warrington who would weld cracks in bells, if they were sent to their foundry, on the terms of ‘No cure, no pay.’

Mr. C. F. Johnston said he knew of two bells that had been successfully welded, so far as the structure was concerned, but not so far as tone was concerned. He also heard of a German who went about England before the war offering to mend bells by a secret process. But it was really no great secret, it was simply acetylene welding. He did a very good structural mend but he did not give the bell back its tone.

The Rev. H. Drake said he did not see why they, as ringers, should discourage the process. It might help to keep an old bell in existence. He did not say it was desirable that any thing of the kind should be done to bells that were to be rung.

The Rev. H. Law James: It isn’t necessary to mend it if you don’t want to ring it. Keep it with the crack in it.

The Rev. H. Drake: The crack may get worse.

The report was accepted, and the Council then adjourned for the luncheon interval, a group photograph being taken in the Cathedral precinct, before the members dispersed.

The Ringing World, June 19th, 1925, pages 393 to 394

When the Council reassembled in the afternoon, the report of the Records Committee for the years 1923-4 and 1924-5 was read by the Rey. A. T. Beeston as follows:- In accordance with your instructions we have pleasure in submitting a list of records of first peals in new methods, and of progressive lengths in old methods, up to date. First peals:-

Little Bob Maximus, 5,016, by the Durham and Newcastle Association.
Cambridge Court Bob Major, 5,088, by the Warwickshire Guild.
Rutland Surprise Major, 5,280, by the Midland Counties Association.
Edinburgh Surprise Major, 5,024, by the Suffolk Guild.
Palatine Surprise Major, 5,184, by the Lancashire Association.
Leicester Surprise Royal, 5,040, by the Midland Counties Association.
Pudsey Surprise Major, 5,120, by the Midland Counties Association.
Edmonton Bob Major, 5,008, by the Middlesex County Association.
Spliced Cambridge and Superlative Surprise Major, 5,056, by the Durham and Newcastle Association.
Rochester Surprise Major, 5,024, by the Suffolk Guild.
Marlborough Bob Major, 5,008, by the Middlesex County Association.
Little Canterbury Major, 5,040, by the Kent County Association.
Treble Bob Major, ‘Cam’ Variation, on tower bells, 5,120, by the Kent County Association.
Winchester Bob Major, 5,008, by the Middlesex County Association.
Spliced Stedman and Erin Caters, 5,133, by the Durham and Newcastle Association.
Dartford Little Bob Major, 5,040, by the Kent County Association.
Spliced Union and Grandsire Triples, 5,040, by the Llandaff Association.

The progressive lengths include -

12,675 Stedman Cinques by the Ancient Society of College Youths.
17,280 Kent Treble Bob Major by the Chester Diocesan Guild.
10,440 Cambridge Surprise Royal by the Middlesex County Association.
9,120 Treble Bob Major, ‘Ilkeston’ Variation, by the Midland County Association.
5,088 Rochester Surprise Major by the Suffolk Guild.
5,056 Reverse Bob Major by the Kent County Association.
5,184 Pudsey Surprise Major by the Midland Counties Association.
5,248 Double Norwich Court Bob Major (‘in hand’), by the Cambridge University Guild.

Hitherto we have not referred in our reports to performances Minor methods. There are, however, three such performances during the period under view, which your committee considers worthy of notice. The two first are seven complete extents in 30 methods on January 1st, 1923, the greatest at the time ever included in such a peal. It was exceeded, however, soon after December 4th, 1923, by seven complete extents in 35 methods. This remains the record.

Moreover, we feel it is advisable to give a list of the first Minor peals rung in progressive methods of methods spliced, according to the present recognised plan. The first was rung by the Lincoln Guild in eight methods, November 9th, 1909; the same Guild rang the first in (2) nine methods, March 10th, 1910; (3) 12 methods, November 7th, 1911; (4) 14 methods, February 15th, 1911; (5) 16 methods, November 18th, 1911.

The Chester Guild rang the first in (1) 13 methods, February 7th, 1920; (2) 15 methods, February 12th, 1924; (3) 17 methods, December 9th, 1921; (4) 18 methods, February 3rd, 1921; (5) 19 methods, July 12th, 1913; (6) 24 methods, November 24th, 1921; (7) 29 methods, March 8th, 1923; (8) 30 methods, January 1st, 1923; (9) 35 methods, December 4th, 1923.

The third performance referred to is a 5,040 at Norbury, Cheshire, on May 8th, 1924, in seven methods, none of which, as far as we know, has ever been included in a peal. The methods are numbers 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 28 in the Council’s collection of Treble Bob methods. They were rung under the names of Shamrock, Bluebell, Daffodil, Foxglove, Marigold, Dahlia and Geranium.

The report was signed by the Revs. A. H. Beeston, T. Hervey Beams, H. Law James.


Mr. T. H. Beams seconded the adoption of the report. Referring to the recently rung peal of Spliced Grandsire and Union Triples, he said they had not yet seen the figures, and, therefore, they could not criticise, but until the composition appeared he would be like the Scotsman, and ‘hae me doots’ about it.

Mr. J. A. Trollope said the first peal rung, called Grandsire Triples, was a ‘spliced’ peal of Union and Grandsire. It was a peal of Grandsire with 5th’s place bob.

Mr. J. W. Jones said, as one who took part in the recent peal, he could briefly explain how it was rung. When the 2nd, 3rd or 4th was in the hunt the method was Union; when the 5th, 6th or 7th was in the hunt the method was Grandsire. In ringing the peal the conductor did not indicate the change of method. He understood the figures would appear in ‘The Ringing World’ that week or the week after. (The composition was published in ‘The Ringing World’ of June 12th.)

Mr. J. S. Wilde pointed out that, strictly speaking, Shipway got the first spliced peal of Union and Grandsire Triples. In ‘Grandsire’ they would find the record of a five-part peal published by Shipway, but there was one lead of Union in each part; therefore it was a spliced peal of Union and Grandsire. In the Central Council’s Collection of Peals, Section 1, there were two peals of Union Triples by W. H. Thompson. These were also spliced peals of Union and Grandsire Triples, as they had one lead of Grandsire Triples in each of the five parts. Mr. Davies also had a variation of a peal by Shipway, in which he brought home the five part-ends as the plain course leads of Grandsire Triples.

The Rev. H. Law James: The plain truth is, there is no such thing as Union Triples at all. It is nothing but 5th’s place bobs in Grandsire.

Mr. J. W. Parker: The first spliced peal of Triples was the first peal of Stedman Triples, because Stedman is spliced Erin and Quick-Six Triples (laughter).

The report was accepted.


The Hon. Secretary (Mr. E. A. Young) reported for the committee entrusted with the organisation of the exhibit for the South Kensington Science Museum. He said he last year suggested that the committee was rather moribund, and he now feared he had nothing much further to report. The head of the Section, where their small exhibit was, had told him he was still waiting for the reorganisation of the galleries, which would give him the floor and wall space. But the thing moved slowly. With regard to Mr. Carter’s ringing machine, he (Mr. Young) had it at his own house, and had written a description, under Mr. Carter’s instruction, as to how it worked and was controlled. He thought they might, therefore, now remove from their minds the feeling that the machine might eventually become somewhat useless because no one was familiar with its contrivances (hear, hear). Mr. Young added that the committee had not met during the year, as he had felt it was not necessary to convene them.

The Rev. C. D. P. Davies, in supporting Mr. Young’s report, said he did not quite agree that the committee was moribund; it was not the committee, it was more likely the Science Museum. The authorities were ‘hanging fire’; they could not yet give the committee the proper room. When they could do so, things would revive, and the committee would only be too glad to avail themselves of any opportunity the museum authorities could give them. With regard to Mr. Carter’s machine, they knew how deeply interesting it was, and he was very thankful that it was at present in Mr. Young’s care, and that Mr. Young had had opportunity to write a description of it. As they all knew, the machine was absolutely unique and, therefore, when Mr. Carter was taken from them, knowledge of the machine and how to work it might have died with him. It was of the greatest importance and value that someone should know how to work the machine. He was thankful it was in the able hands of someone like Mr. Young (hear, hear).

The report was accepted.


The Nomenclature Committee’s report was read by Mr. G. P. Burton as follows: In course of time, and by a process of natural selection and development, usage in most cases, sifts and settles by itself, any question of nomenclature. Although in certain departments of change ringing nomenclature that consummation has happily been quite successfully attained, e.g., such terms as ‘Doubles,’ ‘Minor,’ ‘Triples,’ ‘Major,’ etc., the same, unfortunately, cannot be said of method names. Without any system to guide the selection of fresh names, and with a multitude of new methods produced of late years, a state of almost indescribable confusion has arisen, especially as regards Minor, and more recently Major nomenclature. Every would-be method author has been a law to himself, there having been no authority to decide as to the names to be adopted. Recently, it is true, the schedule of names published by the Analysis Committee in the columns of ‘The Ringing World’ of 30th March, 1923, did something to set Minor nomenclature in order, and to remove some of the then existing uncertainties. However, unfortunately, that report assumed the necessity for the continuation of all existing anomalies, and, what was worse, stereotyped those floral names to which exception has so widely been taken.

In accordance with the terms of reference (1) ‘to review existing method nomenclature,’ your committee have, during the year past, catalogued in tabular form, a collection of some 250 method names, the class to which each name belongs being set down, and the authority or reference, as far as is known, being quoted. It appears from this catalogue, that as many as eleven names are used twice over, five three times over, and so on. The name ‘London,’ by itself, is applied to four different methods, and in combination (i.e., double-barrelled names) is used for at least two more, or six times altogether. ‘Cambridge’ is likewise employed four times; ‘Oxford’ and ‘Norwich’ three times each, and so on. Furthermore, at least 46 names consist of two words (where one would suffice), 7 of three words, e.g., ‘St. James’ Youths’ Exercise’ (a plain Minor method), ‘British Scholars’ Pleasure’ (a Treble Bob Minor method).

Much consideration has been given to names, which for one reason or another, appear unsuitable, and suggestions for alternatives have been noted in the catalogue. Although finality has not yet been reached in this direction, recommendations are made below as to substitutes for the ‘flowers,’ etc.

While your committee appreciates fully the value attaching to historical continuity - a name may be a chapter of history in itself - and realises that old names have, besides, a sentimental interest, yet it is convinced that no satisfactory reformation in nomenclature can be obtained without some break with the past. In many cases, old names, which are in themselves objectionable, are either obsolescent, or entirely fallen out of use. Such names ought not to be printed in any further publications issued by the Council.

Your committee make the following recommendations, in accordance with terms of reference (2): ‘To suggest a suitable system of nomenclature for the future’:-


(a) That method classification should he simplified, and should in future fall into three main divisions: (1) Plain; (2) Treble Bob: (3) Surprise. Such sub-classification of Treble Bob, as ‘Exercise,’ ‘3rd Place Delight,’ ‘4th Place Delight,’ ‘Pasallatessera,’ ‘Pasallatria’ (as given in the C.C. Collection, p. viii, No. 4, 5, 2, 3, are, for all practical purposes, no longer needed, and are in fact, seldom, if ever, used. In modern ringing parlance, methods of the classes in question are termed either Treble Bob or Surprise.

(b) That in future any name should appertain to one individual method, and that in one class only, and should not, as at present, do duty for methods in any other classes, e.g.:-

London Surprise v. London Treble Bob, etc.
Cambridge Surprise v. Cambridge Delight, etc.
Oxford Treble Bob v. Oxford Bob, Oxford Surprise, etc.

The modern tendency to abbreviate has spread to ringing terms, with the result that it is usual nowadays to speak of ‘London,’ of ‘Cambridge,’ or of ‘Oxford,’ when it is intended that ‘London Surprise,’ ‘Cambridge Surprise’ and ‘Oxford T.B.,’ be understood, and not ‘London T.B.,’ ‘Cambridge Delight,’ or ‘Oxford Bob,’ etc.

(c) That, as opportunity offers, all non-essential words, such as ‘Pleasure,’ ‘Court,’ ‘Delight’ and ‘Bob,’ when the latter is used as a meaningless appendage, be dropped. To a practical ringer Double Norwich now signifies the particular method intended, without the use of the words ‘Court Bob.’

(d) That only selected topographical names be employed for the future.

(e) That a change of name be made in the following cases, and that the new names, in the right-hand column, be substituted:-

(I) Floral.Proposed New Name
(I) Floral.Proposed New Name

(II) Castles and Abbeys. (Omit the word ‘Castle’ and ‘Abbey.’)
Beestone CastleBeeston
Belvoir CastleBelvoir
Berkeley CastleBerkeley
Carisbroke CastleCarisbroke
Conisboro’ CastleConisboro’
Conway CastleConway
Chepstow CastleChepstow
Dover CastleDover
Dunottar CastleDunottar
Edinburgh CastleEdgware*
Elstow AbbeyElstow
Fountains AbbeyFountains
Glastonbury AbbeyGlastonbury
Kirkstall AbbeyKirkstall
Leasowe CastleLeasowe
Ludlow CastleLudlow
Melandra CastleMelandra
Melrose AbbeyMelrose
Pembroke CastlePembroke
Pevensey CastlePevensey
Peveril CastlePeveril
Pontefract CastlePontefract
Richborough CastleRichborough
St. Albans AbbeySt. Albans
Skipton CastleSkipton
Sherborne AbbeySherborne
Stirling CastleStirling
Tintern AbbeyTintern
Warwick CastleWarwick
* Entire change of name to distinguish from Edinburgh Surprise.

(III.) Unsuitable and inconvenient. (1st instalment.)
Old Name.Proposed New Name.
British Scholars’ Pleasure (12)Britford
College Bob 4th (21)Bocking
Duke of Clarence (24)Clarence
Duke of Norfolk (3))Grimsby
Grandsire Treble Bob)
Evening Star (25) (26?)Eccleston
Francis Genius (39)Tamworth
Kent Delight (13) (14)Kenley
Kentish Delight (7)Kenilworth
Loch Lomond (18)Lomond
London Scholars’ Pleasure (7)Fulham
London Victory (27)Lambeth
Lytham Pleasure (14)Lytham
Morning Star (6)Mornington
Norton-le-Moors (29)Norton
Old Oxford Modernised (17)Dorchester
Princess Mary (Royal)Goldsborough
Queen Victoria (36)Victoria
Ringers’ (Surprise) (38)Preston
St. James’ Youths’ Exercise (8)St. James.
Trinity Sunday (15)Trenton
Vale Royal (9)Shaftesbury
Woodcock’s Victory (11)Woodbridge
Wooler (10)Ripon

(f) Future requirements as regards new names may be expected to come less and less as time goes on. Assuming there are still new methods to be discovered, any demand might, it is anticipated, be met by publishing a list of selected names in the next C.C. publication. Then, if a new method has to be named before the Council (through its committees) can express an opinion, one of those selected names must be chosen.

The report was signed by Arthur D. Barker, T. Hervey Beams, George P. Burton, Arthur L. Coleman and H. Drake.

Rider by Rev. H. Drake: (1) In the case of all new methods, which have been rung under names proposed to be altered, an opportunity should be given to those who first rang them to approve of the proposed new name.

Riders by the committee: (2) No names or terms supplementary of, or in substitution for, these published by authority of C.C. should be used until the sanction of C.C. has been obtained; (3) a supplement to the Glossary, containing new names and terms up to date, should be at once put in hand.


Mr. Burton, in proposing the adoption of the report, remarked the committee were at some disadvantage in not having been able to publish their report in advance, both from the point of view of clarity and the saving of time. Continuing, he said, with regard to the confusion of names, the committee admitted that many Minor names had been put right in the work of the Analysis Committee in 1923, but it had been by no means cleared up. One Treble Bob method had had, at various times, eight names, and all these eight names were somewhere or other current. Mr. Burton gave instances of other cases where overlapping of names still exists, and then went on to refer to the absurdities in the terms used in ringing. Ringers, he said, had got so used to them that they did not quite realise how ridiculous they might seem in the eyes of laymen. Such a name as ‘Grandsire’ - the committee made no proposal about that - was really a very absurd term, and although they could not hope to get rid of that word, there were many others equally absurd which might with advantage be dispensed with. The word ‘bob’ was certainly absurd. It was undoubtedly a good belfry ‘call,’ and they did not want anything better for that purpose than ‘bobs’ and ‘singles,’ but they did not want the term ‘bob’ used anywhere else. The committee maintained they should not use the same word twice over, by introducing it into the names of methods. They were sorry to see that in the titles of some of the new methods that had been recently published the word ‘bob’ was quite gratuitously thrown in. It was not wanted, and only made it a bit of a laughing-stock. With regard to the names which the committee suggested should be substituted for the floral names, they thought it might be easier if they provided a name as nearly as possible like that which they hoped to discard, or with the same initial letter. It would make it easier for the band in the habit of using the old names to get used to the new ones. The Nomenclature Committee, added Mr. Burton, wanted the Methods Committee to clear up several doubts as to classification, because they wanted to know, if they were to be asked by the Council to give names, the classes to which the methods belonged. The Council would see that the committee’s proposals were exceedingly moderate, in view of the feeling up and down the country in favour of a drastic change. The committee submitted that their case for this change was a very strong one, and they asked those who wanted more to be content, and those who disliked any change to be as accommodating as they could. They also appealed to the Methods Committee for their co-operation, as they did not want to be antagonistic towards one another.

The Ringing World, June 19th, 1925, pages 409 to 410, correction July 31st, 1925, page 487

Mr. T. H. Beams, in seconding, drew attention to the desirability of reducing the number of classes into which methods were divided. For ringing purposes, it was only those who liked to strain at the gnat and miss the camel, that were not satisfied with three classifications. With regard to the confusion of names, Mr. Beams referred to the method rung variously under the names of Oxford Delight, Woodbine and Merchants’ Return.

Rev. H. Law James: They are not fit to be rung, and are rapidly dying out.

Mr. Beams: But they are still rung.

Rev. H. Law James: And ‘Churchyard Bob’ is still rung (laughter).

Mr. Beams went on to ask those who were not satisfied with three classifications to tell them how many more were needed. He submitted that if they were to get rid of the objectionable names, there could be no better time than the present. He understood that the present edition of the ‘Collection of Minor Methods’ was nearly exhausted. The new edition should be published with the new names, and he was quite sure that in twenty years’ time they would be the names under which all these methods would be rung. If they looked at the Press, which knew little about ringing terms, they saw the way some of these names could be ‘screwed,’ and this made them a laughing-stock. That was what they wanted to avoid, and if they could do that they would do something which would help forward the movement.

The Rev. F. Ll. Edwards pointed out that no place was allowed in the classification for ‘Principles.’


Mr. E. W. Elwell said he understood that, if they adopted the report the names would, ipso facto, change over. He thought, therefore, it would be fairer to everyone if they could give it further consideration by having the report published and dealing with it next year. He came there that day with certain instructions from his Guild. The Chester Guild knew that the committee had been formed, and had tackled a very difficult problem, but at the same time they had reminded him of the old custom under which ringers named the methods which they had first rung. The Chester Guild had rung many methods for the first time, and were not prepared to admit that any body of gentlemen had the right to alter and revise the old names on behalf of the Exercise. They felt themselves as well able to choose the names as anyone else. It was felt the committee might confine itself to choosing one of the names in those cases where a method had more than one name, so that it might be known by that one name in future. Another thing was, he was not sure that flower names were not as good as some others. For instance, he preferred ‘Daffodil’ to ‘Dartmoor’ (laughter, and a Member: Dartford, not Dartmoor). He did not see that it much mattered if the Press did laugh at them. Outside individuals understood little about ringing, and only fools laughed. The idea in his Guild was that existing names of Minor methods should be allowed to stand, and that where there was more than one name the committee should choose which name the method should be known by. He moved that consideration of the subject be adjourned until the report had been published.

Mr. J. A. Trollope seconded. He said if the report was to be taken as an expression of pious opinion, they of the Methods Committee had nothing to say, but if it was going to tie the Council and the Exercise they would have to go into it and move amendments to practically everything. Mr. Trollope added that, with regard to the use of the word ‘Bob’ in the names of methods, it was given because it distinguished the classification. It was not redundant at all.

Alderman J. S. Pritchett, in supporting the amendment, said he recognised the committee had presented a report of great gravity, which, nevertheless, admitted of being treated with a certain amount of levity. They recognised the earnestness and pains that the committee had been put to produce this report (hear, hear), and he for one, who was inclined at the last meeting to treat the subject as one scarcely deserving the attention of the Council, had now rather modified his view. He could not help recognising it was full of debatable matter, and they ought not to adopt the report in its entirety without a little more consideration. It was very easy to say what ought to be done: it was another matter to get things done. Ringers had habits which they could not well alter by legislation. They had a habit of calling methods by certain names, and the Council would find it difficult to get them to alter names when the Council said they were undesirable. He would like to see the report in print, and reserve his decision until that had been done.


The Rev. H. Drake said when he signed the report he was under the impression there were three classes of methods and a class of ‘principles.’ With regard to the amendment, he certainly had no objection to it, and he did not think the other members of the committee had. They had no wish to try to be autocratic; what they wanted to do and what they were asked to do at the last meeting was to try to bring order out of confusion, and also to avoid, if they could, any names that seemed to be causing ridicule. They had done that in this report, and they would be very glad indeed if it could be published, and be considered next year; but one had to remember that, they were told at the last meeting, and previously by correspondence, that it was a very urgent matter, and that those names should be fixed as soon as possible, because people were waiting to ring the methods, and did not know under what names they should be rung. The amendment to some extent took away from the value of the rider he suggested, viz.: ‘That in the case of all new methods, which have been rung under names proposed to be altered, an opportunity should be given to those who first rang them, to approve of the proposed new name.’ He had not been able to get his fellow-members on the committee to go with him and support the rider, because they thought it would be impracticable. He would suggest something on these lines: that when the list of names, such as those the committee put forward, were agreed to, they should be published for a certain length of time, so that the people who were interested, that was those who had rung the method, and the ringers in the place after which the method was called, could have the opportunity of objecting to it; that these objections should be considered by the Council or the committee; that if no objections were made within the period, the changes should be absolute. These riders did not exactly come within the terms of reference, but they were things which might be adopted as resolutions, so that they might know what they were to do in future. This matter of terms was one that went beyond that of names. The committee’s reference at present was only in regard to names of methods. Mr. Trollope had spoken of names like ‘Bob’ and ‘Treble Bob.’ They could not call them names of method, they might call them descriptions or descriptive terms. What they required was an authority to deal with terms as well as names. He did not think it was quite right that a man should be able to say, because he had used a name, that that name must always be used in future. They, as a Council, should exercise their authority as to what terms should be used, and as to the actual meaning of the terms.

Mr. Burton said with regard to Mr. Trollope’s inquiry as to whether the committee were penning a pious report, that was not the case - the committee were absolutely out for it.

The proposal to adjourn the discussion until the report had been printed was then put to time meeting, and carried.

Alderman Pritchett said he would like to propose a vote of thanks to the committee for their labours. Personally, he had been rather at variance with them, but the subject was one of great controversy, and the committee were likely to got more kicks than halfpence, but the Council would all agree that the committee had endeavoured to do well by the subject, and deserved a hearty vote of thanks (hear, hear).

The motion was put, and carried, and on the suggestion of the President, a vote of thanks was also accorded to the other committees for the work they had done during the year.


The Hon. Secretary stated that the ‘Card of Instructions’ as to the care of church bells had been printed, and the Rev. H. Drake had given them £5 towards the expenses. There were three thousand or four thousand towers in England and Wales where these cards might well be put on the wall, but that would cost a great deal of money and involve a great deal of time. They could, however, make a start, as he had got 500 copies. It was the desire of the Standing Committee that members present should take a card with them, and it was suggested that it would be a very good start in the distribution if they sent one of the cards to each of the Archdeacons in the various dioceses, and also one to each of the secretaries of the Guild and Associations affiliated to the Council.

Mr. T. H. Beams said if they asked each of the secretaries to take enough for their own affiliated towers they would get over the difficulty of distribution quite easily.

The President pointed out that secretaries had no authority over towers not connected with their associations, and that was why the Standing Committee suggested that a copy should be sent to every Archdeacon in England and Wales, so that they might know about it, and bring it before the different clergy and churchwardens.

Mr. James George said it was a pity the instructions were not printed on one side of the card only. Many people would not bother to look at the back.

The Hon. Secretary said that would have necessitated a very cumbersome card.

The Hon. Librarian said the Standing Committee recommended that the card should be sent to each Archdeacon, and that each secretary of association should have one or more sent to him, in order that he might discover from his branch or district secretaries how many cards were wanted.

The Rev. H. Drake said he hoped the Archdeacons would be asked to see that each Rural Dean got one. He suggested that recommendations should also be sent out with regard to the duration of ringing at churches where there was only one bell rung, and he put forward what he thought should be recommended.

The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn thought the Council would be wasting time to consider anything of that sort.

The President said practices differed so much that he thought it would be ridiculous to put forward any suggestion, but if Mr. Drake wished to bring the matter forward at the next meeting, he hoped he would put it on the agenda.

It was resolved to send a copy of the card to all Archdeacons in England and Wales, requesting them to bring it to the notice of their respective Rural Deans; and to hon. secretaries of Guilds and Associations, with the request that they will bring it before their district secretaries with a view to getting the card placed in all belfries.


Mr. E. W. Elwell moved the following resolution: ‘That, considering the future possibilities of Radio, the attention of the Press and Literature Committee of the Central Council be drawn to the performances of “bell chiming” occasionally broadcast, as such performances are liable to create a wrong impression of the true nature of bell ringing and further to request the committee to bring to the notice of the British Broadcasting Company all unsuitable imitations of bell ringing which may be broadcast.’ Mr. Elwell said this resolution was drawn up by the secretary of one of the branches of the Chester Guild and was brought forward at the Guild’s annual meeting when he was asked to submit it to the Council. He said that on one or two occasions bell chiming carillons and efforts to make a noise on bells by hammers worked by machinery had been broadcast, and the public had got the impression that bell ringing came from Belgium. On the top of that one frequently heard certain bell chiming which took place at a London church, and which was not bell ringing. He thought the public were getting rather too fond of it, and it was time the Press and Literature Committee took the matter in hand and watched this, among other things. He believed the B.B.C. would be very considerate to any suggestion, and would be ready to have their co-operation to broadcast good change ringing, rather than chiming and foreign music.

The Rev. C. D, P. Davies seconded, and said he once listened to the bells of a certain church, and he had never heard anything more ‘footling.’ It was nothing but Ellacombe hammers pulled again the bell, and now and again the performer broke out into tune ringing.

The motion was carried, and the Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn suggested that Mr. A. Paddon Smith should be entrusted with the task of approaching the B.B.C.

Mr. Paddon Smith: I have on many occasions communicated with the B.B.C., and it is just as much a waste of time as some of that we have done here to-day (laughter).


Alderman J. S. Pritchett next proposed ‘That this Council, as a general rule, disapproves of the augmentation of peals of eight into peals of ten.’ He said the eight bell of his own parish church, King’s Norton, were recently recast, and it was suggested that they should be augmented to ten. He was happy to say that suggestion fell through, and instead of having what would probably have been an indifferent peal of ten, they had a beautiful ring of eight. There was, he continued, an idea among ringers generally that it was a great thing to have ten bells instead of eight in a church tower. Very often it was a great mistake. The only reason apparently was that ringers got opportunities of ringing on a larger number of bells than they otherwise would, but there were many other considerations to be taken into account before it should be decided to augment a ring of eight into ten. The suggestion was usually made, when a peal of eight was going to be recast. ‘Why not have a peal of ten while we are about it?’ They went to a bell founder, and he said, ‘Oh yes, nothing easier (laughter). We can make you a lovely peal of ten out of the metal of your eight, and with a little contrivance, we can get them into your tower.’ It presented no trouble to him (laughter). But there were other considerations. It was often difficult to get ten bells into an eight-bell tower, and it so taxed the ingenuity of the bell hangers that they often had to put two bells above the others. In that case they found in the ringing chamber that the sounds of the two small bells were drowned by those underneath. In one tower, he remembered it was scarcely possible to hear the two trebles in the ringing chamber. On the ground of expense there were often objections. The metal of the eight bells was split among the ten, and they had a light peal of ten, which, in his opinion, was always unsatisfactory. It was also very difficult to form a proper ringing circle, and a great many expedients were resorted to, and they had to have an ingenious arrangement of rails and guides. It was often a great makeshift to get ten bells into an eight-bell tower. Moreover, if they were going to augment the weight of the bells by using additional metal, the consideration of the safety of the tower presented itself. Bells have been placed in towers without due consideration of the safety of the fabric; consequently, in a short time, the tower had been declared unsafe, and the ringing of the bells had been stopped. That was a thing they wanted to guard against. In his view the ideal of change ringing was change ringing on eight bells - eight fairly heavy bells, tenor from a ton to 25 cwt., or even more. The music of eight heavy bells when properly rung in changes was extremely dignified; it created a far greater impression upon the people outside than did the music on a lighter peal of ten. The music in all standard methods, he thought he was right in saying, was originally devised for eight bells; the music of an octave was the most satisfactory to the listener. The man outside could count eight bells as they were rung in changes; it was extremely difficult for him to count ten, and almost impossible to count twelve in a change. Methods for eight bells were legion, inviting scope for ingenuity. Very few of the odd-bell methods, however, were capable of extension to nine bells, and there were few, if any, true extensions of the Surprise methods to ten bells, the so-called extensions being really specially constructed methods. It was a laudable idea on the part of ringers to desire to be able to ring on ten bells, but it was also a fact that at some towers, when the bells had been augmented to ten, they were not regularly rung as ten. It was only occasionally they were rung in changes, such as when visitors came for an opportunity of ringing a ten-bell peal. The words of his motion did not exclude the making of ten-bell rings altogether, where a tower was suitable and where bells were being put in for the first time but where it was a question of augmenting eight into ten merely for the sake of having more bells it was a very unwise course to take.

Mr. E. A. Young (the hon. secretary) seconded. He said he had only intended to second the motion formally, but after the cogent reasons put forward by the proposer he had been converted against his own previous opinions. There was much to be said in favour of eight bells, and there was another point which was in his mind, and that was the question of the strength of the towers. This was a phase of the question in which he was particularly interested, and he remembered a case where, through extra bells being put into a tower, the building had become unsafe.

Mr. A. Paddon Smith said when he saw this motion on the agenda he experienced a feeling of amusement; he did not think anyone could have put it down seriously. When he now saw who it was who had put down the motion, that feeling had changed to one of absolute amazement. Mr. Pritchett was his (Mr. Smith’s) Presiding Ringing Master and felt very keenly about this particular ring of bells at King’s Norton. He (Mr. Smith) did not agree with a single word Ald. Pritchett had said (laughter), and the motion did not stand the slightest ghost of a chance of being passed (laughter and applause). If they must pass a resolution on these lines it should be simply ‘that this Council, as a general rule, approves of the augmentation of peals of eight into peals of ten’ (applause). He could not conceive that this motion was really intended to be serious. Would Mr. Pritchett propose that peals of six should not be augmented to peals of eight, or peals of ten to peals of twelve? All their famous rings of twelve were peals that had been augmented at some time or other. With regard to King’s Norton, Alderman Pritchett admitted that they had a very beautiful peal of eight. He said the tenor was only 14 cwt. That might be true, but it sounded a lot heavier, and in any case he (Mr. Smith) believed there was some danger of two trebles being added in the not too distant future (applause). If he could do anything towards bringing about that development he should certainly do so, although he would have a very formidable opponent. How could the bells at King’s Norton be spoiled by putting in two equally good trebles? The King’s Norton men were already well able to ring ten bells, and if they did not ring the ten, the beautiful eight would still be rung, and the two beautiful trebles would be there to be rung when he went over (laughter and applause). He would much prefer to ring ten to ringing eight. He did not, he added, believe Mr. Young really meant to second the motion (laughter).

Mr. T. Faulkner: When I first saw this motion on the agenda I wondered what it was all about. Now I can see what it is. There is a conspiracy between the Presiding Ringing Master and the secretary of St. Martin’s Guild to pull the legs of the Central Council (laughter). I move we proceed to the next business.

Canon Elsee said if it was a question of choice between a really good peal of eight, with a heavy tenor, and a light peal of ten, then he was with Alderman Pritchett, and would have a heavy peal of eight. There was a real objection to encouraging the augmentation of peals that are too light to produce the full music. If a peal was to be recast it might be suggested that ten bells should be cast from the same metal as the old eight. That meant a loss of tone; but if the weight was not to be decreased he saw no objection to increasing the number of bells.

The Rev. H. Law James invited Mr. Pritchett to go to Surfleet. The tenor was 12 cwt. 9 lb., and the treble 2 cwt. 2 lb. It was a ring of ten, and everyone who listened to the bells imagined the tenor was a ton in weight, and the bells were beautiful music.

The Rev. C. D. P. Davies said if they were to follow Alderman Pritchett he did not know where they would be. Had it not been for augmentation they would have had no Painswick bells, and no Cheltenham twelve either. He entirely disagreed with Ald. Pritchett. Two more bells gave a lightness and buoyancy that was rather was rather wanting in an octave. Twelve was, perhaps, rather more of an open question, but if they had acted in the past upon Ald. Pritchett’s contentions, he did not know what they would have done. They certainly would not have got some of their finest and most famous peals of ten and twelve in the country (hear, hear).

The Ringing World, July 3rd, 1925, pages 425 to 426

Alderman Pritchett said he put the motion on the agenda at the invitation of the hon. secretary, who said he did not think there would be enough to talk about (laughter) but somebody else came forward, and on that ground he claimed the Council’s sympathy (laughter). He did not expect that anybody would agree with anything that he had said but he did not expect, he must confess, that he would be made fun of (laughter). He apologised to the Council, and thought he had better withdraw (laughter and ‘No’).

Amid further laughter, the motion was then put, and declared lost by a large majority. Except for the mover and seconder, only two hands were held up in favour, and these were two of the bell founders, with a keen sense of humour.


Mr. W. A. Cave moved a resolution, of which he had given notice: ‘that on Page 13 of the Rules and Decisions in the paragraphs headed (a) “on nine and eleven bells, (b) on eight, ten and twelve bells,” the words, “in any one method,” be omitted.’ He pointed out that this alteration was necessary in view of the development of ringing, and the fact that peals on these higher numbers would in the future be rung in more than one method, the rule as it stood limiting peals on numbers higher than six bells to one method only.

Mr. Beams suggested that ‘seven bells’ should also be included, but this, it was pointed out, would involve a separate resolution.

The motion was carried without discussion.


The Rev. E. S. Powell proposed ‘that it be an instruction to the honorary secretary to add the names of the proposer and seconder of a motion, when the same is printed in the agenda.’ He said they had had that day an illustration of one good reason, although not his real reason for recommending the course he proposed. Had they had the name of the proposer of a certain motion on the agenda it might have conduced to more peace in St. Martin’s Guild, if the Guild could have known beforehand what their respected Master was going to do (laughter). A resolution ought to show what lay behind it, and it ought to have the names of the proposer and seconder. If, for instance, they saw the name of Mr. James to a motion they would expect, when they came to the meeting to hear something about Bob methods, and perhaps Canterbury Pleasure. On the other hand, if a motion bore the names of members of the Chester Guild, they could, by way of preparation to deal with the matter faithfully, turn out their books on botany and study them (laughter). In two different ‘persons’ hands the same resolution meant two totally different things. The real thing at the back of his mind, however, was, that there was getting to be a great congestion of business at the Central Council meeting. To have the names of the proposer and seconder would be a guide as to the probable importance of what was behind a resolution, and so help to strengthen the hands of the president in regard to the earlier part of the business.

Mr. G. P. Burton seconded the motion, but Alderman Pritchett opposed it. He did so, first of all, on general grounds, as he did not see it could serve any useful purpose if it were carried. He also opposed it on the special ground, that if he had had to put the names to his motion that day he might have had to hunt in vain for a seconder. There would then have been no discussion, for the Council would not have had the great amusement that had been afforded it (laughter).

The Rev. H. Law James supported the resolution.

The President pointed out that no subject could be proposed for discussion unless it was sent in one month before and signed by two members.

The motion was carried nem. con.


The President said the Standing Committee had had under consideration the question of the place of next meeting. Following the regular cycle which they had adopted for more than 30 years, their first meeting of a session was always in London; the meeting this year was in the north-west of England, and consequently next year it should be in the south-east. Two places were suggested to the committee, viz., Canterbury and Ipswich. They had met at Canterbury in the past, and although they were agreed it would be a good place to go to, they felt that they ought to recommend Ipswich in preference to any other place. The Council had never been there; it was very ‘get-atable,’ and they thought it would be the best place for the Council to meet next year. On behalf of the Standing Committee he therefore proposed Ipswich.

The Rev. H. Drake, on behalf of the Suffolk Guild, gave the Council a hearty invitation to Ipswich. They had not got quite as interesting a place as Chester, but they would do their best with the interesting things they had, and they would give the Council a hearty welcome.

Mr. C. Ince supported the invitation, and said the Suffolk Guild would try to give the Council the time of their lives.

The motion was carried unanimously.


The Rev. C. W. O. Jenkyn said the Council at the last meeting entrusted the Oxford Guild with the task of putting up a memorial to James William Washbrook, in Oxford, and it also called upon all Associations and Guilds to support the Oxford Guild in doing so, in order that it might be a national one. The treasurer had informed him that he had actually in hand £115 15s. They wanted £160, or, it might be, £170, although he thought £160 might be sufficient. Out of that £115, the Oxford Guild, by means of private subscriptions, and from towers and branches, had contributed £90 9s.; so that he thought they might say the Oxford Guild was doing its part (hear, hear). He also thought that those Guilds and Associations throughout England, who had sent anything at all, had responded very well indeed. He asked those associations who had not yet subscribed kindly to let the treasurer know what support they could give, so that he would be able to announce, when the Oxford Guild met in July, that the money was in hand.

The promise of a number of subscriptions from associations was made by various representatives.


The Hon. Secretary gave notice that at the next meeting he would move: ‘That the time has now arrived when the Council should consider whether the so-called scientific or Simpson tuning is in the best interests of the Exercise’ (hear, hear, and laughter).

Alderman Pritchett moved a vote of thanks to the Bishop of Chester, the Dean and the Cathedral authorities for the kindness extended to the Council, and the facilities they had afforded for the holding of a successful meeting. This was unanimously carried, as was also a vote of thanks to the President, proposed by Mr. J. Griffin and a vote of thanks to the committee and secretary of the Chester Diocesan Guild, proposed by Mr. W. H. Hillier.

This terminated the business, and the Council then rose.

Many of the members and their friends afterwards went in to the Cathedral for the evening service, the singing being chiefly remarkable for the clear enunciation of the words. Then, following a procession to the cloisters, where they joined in a short service, at which two memorial lights were dedicated.

By this time the lower part of the Refectory was transformed into its original use, as a dining hall, and, as the guests of the Chester Diocesan Guild, about 120 sat down to tea. This number was about 50 per cent. in excess of those who had accepted, but those in charge of the catering rose nobly to the occasion, so that none went empty away. The chair was taken by Mr. H. A. Heywood, who was for some years hon. secretary of the Chester Guild.

During the meal the Dean gave a brief, breezy, but nevertheless informative, address on the history of the building, especially mentioning those things most worthy of a visit. He also placed the bells at the disposal of the ringers till 7.30 p.m.

In the handsome ball room of the Grosvenor Hotel a party of about 150 afterwards foregathered under the capable chairmanship of the Master of the Chester Diocesan Guild (Rev. C. A. Clements). There another treat was in store for the musical portion of the evening was rendered by the Cathedral Quartette, whose part singing was of a most pleasing and well-balanced character.

Canon Coleridge also delighted his listeners by one of his ‘Devonshire Stories.’

During an interval he presented Mr. H. W. Wylde with a handsome pair of silver candlesticks, as a slight recognition of all he had done, especially in getting the house and grounds of Eaton Hall open to the Council and their friends on the previous day.- Mr. Wylde, taken by surprise, feelingly responded.

Thanks to the Diocesan Guild for the arrangements made was followed by Auld Lang Syne and the National Anthem.

The Ringing World, July 10th, 1925, page 441

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional