 |
| 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) |
Vestry Meeting At Holy Trinity
SPEECH BY MR. ENRAGHT
The Easter vestry meeting for the Parishes of Holy Trinity, St Alban’s, All Saints and Small Heath, was held this morning at Holy Trinity Church, Bordesley, the Rev. R. W. Enraght, the vicar, presiding.
There was a very large attendance, amongst those present being the Rev. W. Elwin, and Messrs. Harris, Clay, Halmshaw, Pinckney, Tookey, Maisey, Rowlands, Marris Whitworth, &c.
The Chairman read the notice convening the meeting, which stated that it was held for the purpose of electing church wardens for the ensuing year.
Mr. Halmshaw then proposed a vote of thanks to the outgoing churchwardens, and this, being seconded by Mr. Watts, was carried unanimously.
The Chairman nominated Mr. Thomas Harris as the vicar’s warden for the ensuing year.
On the proposition of Mr. Watts, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Clay was unanimously elected Parish Churchwarden for the ensuing year.
The Chairman said that closed the business of the meeting, but if they would listen to him he had a few remarks to make. As chairman of the parish meeting he would say that when, Mr. Perkins withdrew the poll last year. (Hisses.) Let them not hiss.
He would rather no feeling was shown against the other side. When Mr. Perkins withdrew he and several gentlemen who came to the girl’s school to withdraw – and there were plenty who could testify to the truth of what he was going to say – complimented him on having behaved with great fairness, not only in connection with the vestry, but throughout the whole matter from the beginning. They very strongly expressed that opinion last Monday.
There was nothing he detested more
than unfairness, and he should treat his greatest enemy fairly in his
capacity as chairman. The meeting was now absolutely finished, and
nothing more could be done.
*******
Therefore it was as vicar of the parish that he now addressed them. And as vicar he could not be an impartial spectator to what was going on.
Of late years the clergy who were so – called Ritualists had been very worried. It might be said about the clergy who were called Ritualists “If you chose to oppose what has been in the Church before the bringing in of your own crotchets and carry on the service differently you must expect to be pitched into.” He thought there was a great deal of sense in that remark, but as vicar of that parish he was not in the least opposed to it. He had opposed nothing, and therefore he did not see that he should be abused.
He had kept all that was there when Dr. Oldknow was there, and he had been put there to do what he was doing. Of course if he had not intended to do so he would not have undertaken the work. He felt it a great honour to be asked to take Dr. Oldknow’s place ; and he had kept up his place ia a very humble way and no more. Moreover he appealed to Mr. Harris, his churchwarden, if during the time he had there he had not a hundred times told him, that if in the congregation there were any number whoo wished changes in the service, and a requisition was brought forward by any reasonable number of the parishioners, he would alter the service or resign.
What more could he do? He never received such a requisition. He kept on telling Mr. Harris this. But he did not want the old story of the old man and his donkey repeated, and let them tumble into the river. (Laughter.)
He had not acted as any vicar of a parish would. He had not ridden rough-shod over any on – (hear, hear.) – and he had not tried to do so. He had to live there by his wits, for they only had 100 years’ endowment. It would have been very foolish to do what was illegal, and he contended that he had not disobeyed his ordination rubrics. The very books that he had to pass through at the Divinity School told him that the interpretation of the rubric was true to what he was carrying on ; and the very books the bishops put into his hands gave him the same interpretation. Indeed they really did not go nearly so far as the law of the Church allowed them.
They were most moderate people. It was the constitutional law of this land that no change should be made in the Prayer Book without Convocation gave its assent. But courts had been set up by mere Acts of Parliament without the consent of Convocation, and that was why he and others did not believe in them, and would not listen to them. They had made the greatest possible mistakes in these courts. They had interpreted the ordinance rubric in a way contrary entirely to all authorities of which he had heard or read, and they could not be expected to give way to that kind of thing. This feeling was pretty general in the Evangelical party as well as the so-called Puritan party.
The Public Worship Regulation Act, which was passed without the consent of Convocation, provided that both the churchwardens of a church must agree that changes were required before the vicar was requested to make them. But in his case they had gone quite contrary the express intentions of the Act ; for by the action of one churchwarden he had been bullied, as also had been the congregation and his parishioners. (Applause.)
The congregation agreed in all that he was doing, and the parishioners agreed to leave them in peace. They had unanimously agreed that they ought to be allowed to go on as they had been going on. Their votes had shown that they had confidence in the churchwardens and in him, and they did not want to annoy anyone. He believed it was the intention of certain parties to still pursue the prosecution against him. He had been to prison for about six weeks, and this party would try to get him there again or deprive him of his living. He appealed to those gentlemen present to make their voices loudly heard in order that this should be put a stop to, and that the congregation that worshipped in that church should be allowed to worship God in peace.
It was not worth his while to stop to be bothered as he had been. If it were not that he wished to fight the battle there for the congregation, and that if he did not so do he should be loudly blamed by a number of clergy throughout the Country – whose principles he was fighting for – he would resign.
At the conclusion of the address, a vote of thanks was unanimously passed to the vicar.
In reply, he said he did not blame gentlemen who had been persecuting him ; he thought he might ; reasonably say that if the remarks before made were true, the prosecution were most unfair.
The Birmingham Daily Mail 18 April 1881.
*******
*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 the 'My Ordinations Oaths' page, written by Revd Richard Enraght while in Warwick Prison in December 1880.
*******
Transcription by D. Sharp 2025