Protests at Holy Trinity, Bordesley, Birmingham.
After Fr Enraght’s dismissal from Holy Trinity, the new Vicar given the task of entering the hornets nest of the aggrieved Parishioners of Holy Trinity, Bordesley in 1883, was the Sussex born, ‘Low-Churchman’ the Revd Alan Hunter Watts, who had previously served as a Curate at St Michael’s Bishopwearmouth (now known as Sunderland Minister).
Coincidently
many years later in 1917 the Revd Alan Hunter Watts was to be appointed
Vicar of Holy Trinity, Ship Street, Brighton, which was 10 minutes walk
from the Anglo-Catholic St Paul’s Brighton, the church that Fr Enraght served as
a curate to Revd Arthur Wagner from 1867 until 1872.
Revd Watts’ daughter Helen Watts,
became famous as a suffragette, being a founding member in 1907 of
the Women’s
Social and Political Union.
 |
| Image Credit the Hathi Trust Digital Library and The University of Michigan Library The Old & New Birmingham by Robert Kirkup Dent (1880) Holy Trinity, Bordesley, Birmingham. (Church closed in 1971) |
'High Church and Low Church'
THE Birmingham correspondent of the Daily News wires on 12th March 1883, concerning interesting proceedings under the headline, High Church & Low Church, as follows:—
'Probably the most disgraceful scene ever enacted in an English church was witnessed to-day at the Church of the Holy Trinity, Bordesley.
Birmingham has lately achieved a lively notoriety in consequence of the Ritualist disputes' associated with the ministration of the Rev. Mr. Enraght.
A day or two ago the Bishop of the diocese served Mr. Enraght with a formal inhibition from officiating at Holy Trinity, and the living was offered to and accepted by the Rev. H. Allan Watts, a Low Church, clergyman, of Sunderland.
Immediately it was announced that Mr. Enraght had received notice to quit, and that a new clergyman would introduce a different sort of ritual, the choir resigned in a body, and the organist followed suit, and all sorts of menaces were held out to the new comer.
This morning the new vicar underwent the introductory process of reading himself in.
Extraordinary excitement was manifested in the neighbourhood, and in order to prevent a breach of the peace the Chief of Police, with a large number of constables, attended the church.
There was a great crowd in the churchyard, and the adjacent streets were filled with a noisy mob.
Admission to the church was gained with the greatest difficulty, the building being filled to overflowing long before the commencement of the service. Immediately the vicar made his appearance in the vestry he was served with a protest by one of the Ritualist Churchwardens objecting to his, presence on the ground that he was disposed to degrade the services and unset the regular machinery of the parish.
The vicar replied in a conciliatory tone, and gave an assurance of his intentions to work harmoniously; with both sections of the congregation.
On entering the church he was greeted with a storm of hisses and loud cries of "Traitor."
The members of the old choir took up a position at the end of the church, and were the loudest in the uproarious manifestations against the incoming vicar. A scratch choir had been organised for the occasion, but when they commenced to sing the Litany the old choir set up a counter demonstration with the object of drowning their voices.
A scene of indescribable confusion followed. and a number of timid people, fearing a disturbance, got up and left the church.
This produced something approaching a stampede, but the admirable police arrangements prevented any serious, consequences.
The more decorous portion of the congregation rebuked the brawlers in angry tones; but this had only the effect of increasing the tumult
The crisis was reached when the vicar ascended the pulpit He was pale and agitated, and amidst the Babel of sound his Voice was scarcely audible.
He began by saying that he hoped those members of his congregation who had attended the opening service with the object of creating a disturbance would become quiet and peaceable worshippers. He should be glad to meet them in friendly conference on the following day. Instead of conciliating the malcontents, this " message of peace" only caused the uproar to break out afresh. Derisive laughter and unseemly shouts proceeded from various parts of the building, and the supporters of the vicar were so enraged that a collision between the two parties seemed imminent.
The Chief of Police pushed his way among the rival sections, and entreated them to observe something like decency in a place of worship.
In a few moments sufficient quietude was restored to enable the vicar to commence his task of reading himself in.
He had scarcely commenced the Thirty-nine Articles when the members of the old choir made a rush for the door, and then exit was followed by some more of the Ritualistic faction. By this time the vicar was fully convinced that he had nothing to do but continue his work of reading the Articles, no matter whether he was heard or not
At frequent intervals his voice was drowned by fits of coughing and other concerted interruptions. Some of the most systematic disturbers evoked bursts of laughter by shouting out a familiar piece of "gag from a local pantomime. which was followed by counter cries of " Shut up," and "Go to ."
Towards the" end of the reading the vicar seemed so exhausted that his voice scarcely travelled beyond the pulpit. He did not venture upon a sermon, but on finishing his formal task of reading himself in he abruptly left the pulpit, and the proceedings were brought to a termination. But the most disgraceful scene of all had yet to be enacted.
Not satisfied with their unseemly interruptions inside the church, the mob rushed outside to join their companions in the churchyard, with the apparent object of mobbing the vicar.
The police formed a compact phalanx to escort the clergyman to a place of safety. The vicar placed himself in the middle of his bodyguard, amidst a tumult of groans and shouts. Some of his supporters cheered him, and pressed forward to assist the police in clearing the passage.
At one point it was difficult to see how a free fight could be avoided, as the rowdies made a determined rush, and the police and the vicar were carried helplessly for short distance along the churchyard. Here an obstinate stand was made, and the attack was repelled.
On reaching the church gates another obstacle had to be encountered in the hostile crowd in the street, who were groaning and shouting in the most fearful manner. But for the desperate exertions of the police there is little reason to doubt that the unfortunate gentleman would have been subjected to grievous ill-treatment. To add to the confusion of the scene, many women who could not escape from the crush sot up piercing shrieks.
The mob followed the vicar and his body-guard howling and pushing them about till the gentleman reached his residence. Here another demonstration was made, and it was deemed necessary to leave a number of policemen outside the house to protect it from damage.
The Sunday school was closed because the teachers had all "struck." During the day the vicar was presented with an address of congratulation by the Low Church section of his congregation, expressing a hope that his ministrations would continue for a large number of years. The vicar, in reply, thanked his parishioners, and said he wished to be clearly understood that he represented all sections of the congregation. He was glad to hear that the work of the parish committee representing the Low Church-section-had now-been brought to a termination, for as long as it continued it would be a bone of contention to all parties.
A number of police patrolled the churchyard during the afternoon, and an increased force was ordered for the evening service.
The old vicar. Mr. Enraght, is still living at the vicarage, adjoining the church, but wisely abstained from taking any part in the demonstration.
No arrests were made during the morning, but it is to be feared that if any further brawling is indulged in, some stern repressive measures will have to be taken.
The forbearance of the police under the circumstances was worthy of the highest praise.—The proceedings at the evening service were even of a more disgraceful character than in the morning. The force of police was doubled, but nevertheless several free fights took place. Catcalls were indulged in from the commencement and the vicar on appearing in the pulpit was greeted with a storm of howls. Several of the ringleaders were' turned out and to prevent a rush of roughs the church doors had to be closed. The result was that a number of police were shut in the building, and were unable to come out to quell the uproar outside.
During one of the fights inside the building the screaming of a number of women added to the confusion of the scene, and the vicar in vain appealed to the brawlers to desist from further disturbance. Several disfigured eyes and bloody noses attested the severity of the scuffles. The vicar's opening sermon, which was couched in very , conciliatory language, was frequently interrupted with most offensive remarks, such as "Shut up, traitor," "Go back to Sunderland," "When, is the harlequinade coming on?" followed by "When is the farce coming on”
Extra precautions had been taken to get the vicar safely away. Forty or fifty policemen were formed in solid Line to afford a clear passage, and by an irresistible rush the rev. gentleman was literally carried away down the churchyard amidst an indescribable scene of excitement. Several women were upset! in the struggle to get out into the street'.
Transcription of 'High & Low Church' is by D. Sharp and from the Queenslander Newspaper Australia, (12th May 1883)
*******
The following protest letters were sent by the Churchwardens of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, which also appear in the Revd Richard Enraght's My Prosecution pamphlet:-
To the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
Upon Passion Sunday, March 11th, the day upon which the intruder “read himself in,” the Churchwardens, before the commencement of Morning Service, handed to him the following protest: -
To the Rev. Alan Hunter Watts.
We, the Churchwardens of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, in the name of the parishioners and congregation, solemnly protest against your presence here to-day. You accepted this cure of souls while, by the law of God and His Church it belonged to another, thereby subverting the uniform rule and practice of the entire Catholic Church. Your intrusion, therefore, is an outrage upon a Christian congregation, to whom your presence and ministrations can never be acceptable. You have allowed yourself to be the instrument of a persecuting association to deprive us of our beloved vicar, the Rev. R. W, Enraght. He has worked amongst us for eight years and a half as a worthy successor to Dr. Oldknow, and has maintained that catholic teaching and worship which are prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and which we have been privileged to enjoy in this church for a period of more than forty years. He has carried on, with untiring zeal and energy, the frequent daily services of the church and our numerous parochial organisations. Many of these have been inaugurated during his incumbency, and their number and efficiency have increased every year. You, sir, come to degrade these services, to disperse these agencies, and to disorganise the whole work of our parish. We leave you, therefore, to imagine, with what deep sorrow and regret for our late vicar, and with what righteous indignation against yourself, we regard your usurpation of the office which you come to seize upon to-day.
THOMAS HARRIS, } Churchwardens of
G. LANGSFORD CLAY, Holy Trinity, Bordesley.
March 11, 1883.
*******
In reply to this Protest, the intruder (Revd Alan H. Watts) altogether repudiated the “Church Association,” said that he wished to have nothing to do with the self-styled “Parish Committee,” and expressed the desire to be acceptable to all sides of opinion. The result is that he has chosen Mr. Adkins, the chairman of the “Parish Committee,” to be his Churchwarden; a Mr. Nightingale, a secretary of the “Church Association,” to be his Parish Clerk; and, unless I am misinformed, Mr. John Perkins to teach in his Boys' Sunday School.
During the Morning Service on Passion Sunday, so far as it proceeded, this champion of “the law of this Realm,” use his words to the Churchwardens, committed or sanctioned the four following manifest illegalities.
(1). Instead of himself “reading with a loud voice some one or more” of the opening “sentences” before Morning Prayer he permitted “I will arise” to be sung by the choir.
(2). He permitted the Sanctus in the Communion Service to be sung after the Gospel.
(3). He read only the first sentence of the Exhortation to Communion, “Dearly beloved, on- day next I purpose.”
(4). He neglected to obey the first paragraph of the last Rubric in the Communion Service, “Upon the Sundays and other holy days (if there be no Communion) shall be said * * * * the general Prayer [for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here in earth] together with one or more of these Collects last before rehearsed, concluding with the Blessing.”
These illegalities were reported to me from several different quarters. I cannot say whether there were others, or how many more might have been committed had the Service been continued to the end. That I should have been ejected from my benefice for what thousands of Churchmen believe to be strict observance of the law, while a person expressly appointed by Act of Parliament to see to the due and proper observance of “the law of this Realm” (to again use his own words) should be permitted thus to set at defiance rubrical “laws” of the Church about which there can be no doubt whatever, can only be explained by the now received rule of modern English “law” that a Protestant Minister may with impunity set the law of the Church at defiance, but a Catholic Priest incurs the heaviest penalties if he observes ordination obligations binding all alike,
Much exasperated feeling was shown upon this occasion by several thousands of the parishioners and others assembled inside and outside the Church, and unfortunately there were some unseemly scenes during the time of service. But by the assistance of a strong body of police the intruding clergyman was borne away in safety after the Services.
In consequence the Churchwardens addressed the following letter to the Birmingham papers:-
Sir, - Adverse criticisms are being made upon the conduct of our parishioners on Sunday last. We cannot wonder at it. We deplore much that occurred, and we still more deplore the cause. But we cannot allow the public to forget that on November 11, 1882, we addressed the Lord Bishop in the following terms: -
“We consider it our duty to inform your lordship that in the present exasperated and determined state of the parishioners of this parish we cannot hold ourselves responsible for the consequences which may ensue upon an attempt to thrust an intruding clergyman upon us.”
We respectfully ask the following question. If the rector, congregation, and parishioners of St. Martin’s, Birmingham, had been treated for four years as we have been, their repeated memorials and entreaties having been disregarded, their rector thrown into prison, and finally (with his family) turned out of house and home, some clergyman of quite opposite and obnoxious opinions and ministrations being thrust upon them instead of the clergy and ministrations they had learned to love, and which were ever constantly at their service, how would the parishioners of St. Martin’s be likely to feel and express themselves, and how would the public receive it? It is very easy for persons to condemn us, whose deepest feelings have not been wounded as ours have been, or who are unconcerned, or, it may be, glad spectators of the outrage which has been committed upon us. The persons who are really to blame for last Sunday’s proceedings are all, from first to last, who have had to do with the unrighteous and cruel deprivation of our vicar. We bear witness to the generally patient manner in which our parishioners have all along borne their wrongs, and to the way in which they have loved our beautiful, reverent, and dignified services.
We earnestly entreat all who cannot accept the altered ministrations to abstain altogether from attending the services at Holy Trinity. This, we should add, was Mr. Enraght's advice for Sunday last.
We are, sir, your faithful servants,
THOMAS HARRIS, } Churchwardens of
G. LANGSFORD CLAY,} Holy Trinity.
Holy Trinity Church, Bordesley,
March 15, 1883.
*******
The Churchwardens also addressed the following letter to the London Guardian:-
Sir, - We regard the
unfavourable remarks made by Churchmen upon the disturbances at Holy
Trinity, Bordesley, on Sunday, March 11th, as somewhat ungenerous.
Our congregation have bravely fought a long and depressing battle for
the honour of the Altar and the solemnity of its services, and it
might surely be assumed that they have not suddenly reversed their
previous convictions and lost their respect for the House of God. We
have hitherto always had dignified services, characterised by a
reverence sufficiently marked to be a matter of comment by strangers
coming from Catholic churches. But now our Vicar has been taken from
us by an Inhibition from the Bishop of Worcester, our other clergy
have been dismissed from their posts, and an intruder, uncanonically
appointed and of antagonistic views, has been rudely thrust upon us.
The matter does not merely touch our devout communicants or
congregation. The parish consists of 12,500 persons, not to mention
the large districts adjoining, which formed part of it till recent
years, and still look to Holy Trinity as their mother church, and
have a vote at its vestry. The people are chiefly of the Birmingham
artizan class, which has been neglected for generations. It is too
much to expect that the whole of this vast population of 33,000
persons should already have learnt the devotion of advanced
Churchmen. But they have learnt to love and respect Mr. Enraght, who
has laboured in his parish, with unwearied kindness, and to value the
many agencies for good, which had grown up under his ministry.
They
were indignant at the wrong done to their clergy and to themselves,
and if they expressed it by interrupting the services on Sunday, it
was meant as no irreverence to God, but as a repudiation of a
clergyman whose presence they rightly regarded as an insult to the
church. When it is remembered that, besides our own people, there
were present a number who came down, from Protestant churches in the
town, and a number of idlers out of the streets, no one can wonder at
what occurred. We foresaw it, and wrote to the Bishop last November
telling him that, in the present exasperated state of the parish, we
could not hold ourselves responsible for what might happen if an
intruder was sent.
The responsibility rests with those who allowed
and perpetrated this outrage upon us. We do not defend all that was
done on Sunday. But if, smarting under an injustice which cries out
to Heaven for vengeance, some of our poor people overstepped the
limits of decorum, we who know that their motives were good cannot
sit in judgement upon them. Nor would Churchmen have the heart to
throw stones at us, if they could witness the sorrow of our dispersed
congregation and our troubled poor. They have been sacrificed in the
cause of the Church of England; and, when criticism has found
whatever fault it can, the Church will still have reason to thank
them for the stand which they have made for her rights.
THOMAS HARRIS, } Churchwardens of
G. LANGSFORD CLAY,} Holy Trinity, Bordesley.
March 17th, 1883.
*******
*N.B. because of his active opposition to the Conservative Government's Public Worship Regulation Act., and against the wishes of his congregation, the Revd Richard Enraght, his wife Dorothea, and their six young children were evicted at Easter 1883, from their Bordesley Vicarage by order of the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Enraght Family with the help of the Church Union, moved to Brighton in Sussex, where Fr Enraght could continue his ministry helping his former vicar, Fr Wagner of St Paul's Brighton.
SEE Brighton 1883-1884 page:-