1883 Statement on Parish Crises

copyright © PCC of  St Alban and St Patrick,

Highgate, Birmingham.

Revd Richard  Enraght 
the former Vicar of  Holy Trinity, Bordesley

A Meeting of Mr. Enraght’s Sympathisers on Saturday 10^th March 1883

A meeting to protest against the inhibition of the Rev. R. W. Enraght, vicar of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, was held in the Schools, near the church, on Saturday night. Mr. Harris, one of the churchwardens, presided ; and in addition to the Rev. R. W. Enraght, there were present the Revds. W. Elwin, T. Lupton Taylor, G. F. B. Cross, E. M. Burney, J. H. C. Cohere, C. Sneath ; and Messrs. E. R. Tookey, S. Barmore, W. Naish, H. Halmshaw, G. Godfrey, T. Kimberley, J. Maisey, A. Stanton, T. Fathers, W. Miller, T. Bishop, Gardner, J. J. Blood, W. Wood, W. Helps, W. Whitworth, J. J. Collings, A. Pinckney, G. Brown, G. Maisey, Cooper, Norman, &c,

There was a very large audience.

The CHAIRMAN said that the meeting had been called the purpose of hearing a statement from the vicar with reference to the present crisis in their church. They would all know that the Rev. R. W. Enraght had been turned out of the living of Holy Trinity – (shame) – where he had worked for eight and a half years, with so much satisfaction and advantage to the Church and parish. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Enraght’s loss would be very deeply felt by all classes of persons, but more particularly by the poor of the parish, who were greatly attached to him, and for whom he had always shown the tenderest care. His kindly and genial presence would be very much missed by them all. (Applause.)

The promoters of the outrage were men who were pitied ; but not be sympathised with honest-minded men (“Hear, hear,” and “Shame on them.”)

He had from the beginning of the prosecution looked upon it with suspicion, and he had not been able to discover that it had been marked by the slightest generosity. It was a bad piece of business ; therefore it could not come good. When persons wished to get something into their hands in a dishonest way they, as a rule, liked something to cover their action. The pretext in this case had been the breaking of the law. The Bishop of Worcester admitted to him that it was a wretched law, and it would no doubt soon be altered, It was a law more honoured in the breach than in the observance. (Applause.)

The Rev. R. W. ENRAGHT, who was received with vociferous cheers said, as had been stated by the chairman, the meeting was called to give him an opportunity of making a statement. He did not think of coming to the meeting, for he thought in many ways it would be out of place, as matters were now out of his hands, and, as he understood it, they were in the hands of the parishioners. The churchwardens were strongly of opinion, when they heard that he did not think of attending that meeting, that he was bound to come, and that was the reason why he attended. He did not call the meeting, nor had he had anything to do with calling it ; he did not, however, think himself out of place, (Hear. hear.)

No doubt they would expect him to give them the reason why he had submitted to the Bishop’s inhibition. They would recollect that one Sunday evening in November last he announced that he had received a letter from the Bishop of Worcester, stating that he had given the patrons legal notice of the voidance of the benefice under the Public Worship Regulation Act.

He (the speaker) then held in one hand the letter from the Bishop, and in the other his license – (“hear, hear,” and “Quite so”) – which he received in 1874 ; and he asked the congregation whether the letter from the Bishop telling him that the benefice was void could cancel or do away with the episcopal license which he received, understanding that he really received it from the Lord Jesus Christ through the Bishop. (“No,” and applause.)

The voidance of the benefice was the result of an Act of Parliament, but his license was something that had come from the Lord if it had any meaning at all, and surely an Act of Parliament which came from the Head of the Church could not undo it. After having read his license to the congregation, he said respectfully that if his lordship chose to send him another document cancelling his license, signed with his name and sealed with the episcopal seal, although it would be a very unrighteous thing for him to do, inasmuch as he had been guilty of no canonical offence, he would submit to his lordship’s decision. ( A Voice ; “You did say so, and I heard it.” and applause.)

He also said that he would not give the Bishop any unnecessary trouble. (Hear. Hear.)

Later on, at a meeting of the English Church Union, held in the Masonic Hall, New Street, he said that if the patrons would give him to understand that they were willing to appoint a reasonable clergyman, of reasonable opinions, who would not upset the church and contradict the teaching which had been going on for so many years, then he would withdraw. He said that for the same reason that he made his remarks in the church regarding the bishop – for peace.

Last Thursday the registrar of the diocese (Mr. Hooper) called upon him, and served upon him an inhibition from the bishop – (hisses) – in which was stated briefly the reason for his (the rev. gentleman) being inhibited. People might ask how could an inhibition be fairly and canonically founded on the proceedings of the Public Worship Regulation Act. It could not. It was like a house built on sand. (“Hear, hear.” and applause.)

As he had told them, he informed the bishop that if he thought fit to cancel his license by his episcopal authority he would submit. After receiving the document which he challenged the bishop to send, he had but on alternative – to keep his word. He gave the bishop a respectful challenge. And he had taken it up. He did not expect the bishop would inhibit him ; in fact, he thought that his lordship had put himself into a false position, and he certainly had not heard the last of it. (Loud applause.)

They might depend upon it that his superior officer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, would not approve of the Bishop of Worcester’s action in inhibiting him, and if the Archbishop did not publicly censure him for what he had done it would be because of the present trammelled condition of the Church of England. He might not feel able exactly to state his mind, but he (the speaker) was perfectly certain what his feelings would be. He should appeal to the Archbishop against the action of the Bishop of Worcester, and request him to lay his appeal before Convocation. (Loud applause.)

The Church of England was in chains. Some clergymen, backed up by not a few Churchmen, had been trying to break the chains. (Hear, hear.)

They had broken some, as those present well knew. But who could win in so large a campaign as they had been engaged in without suffering ? (Hear, hear.)

Not only was he (Mr. Enraght) inhibited, but the Rev. Mr. Elwin was also inhibited. (Laughter.)

The Rev. T. Lupton Taylor was quite snuffed out. (Renewed laughter.)

The question which arose in his mind was as to what should be done with regard to Sunday. The Protestants were sure to meet in church, at least, on Sunday. (Laughter.)

So far as he could see, there were three courses to pursue. The first was to keep the church locked, and let them break it open if they wanted to enter ; but, after careful consideration, he could not think that a right course to pursue. (Hear, hear.)

He had tried to labour reverently in the church during the eight-and-a-half years that he had been in the parish, and he did not want to finish up by apparently sanctioning an irreverent action. (Hear, hear.)

The next possible course was to give the keys up to the people who had been attacking him. He did not think proper to do that. (“Hear, hear,” and “Never.”)

And the third course which suggested itself was that, inasmuch as the bishop had inhibited him, and served the inhibition upon him by the registrar of the diocese, it would be best to pack the keys in a respectable parcel – (laughter) – and send them to the Bishop of Worcester, through the registrar. They got the church clean and in order as quickly as they could, and after locking the doors sent the keys by their excellent clerk (Mr. George Maisey), to the Registrar.

As he told them in November, that if the Bishop chose to inhibit him – although an unrighteous and uncanonical action – he would bow respectfully to it. Having done so he did not think it would have been reverent, not to say consistent, for him to have compelled them to have broken open the door, (“Hear, hear,” and “No,”)

No one felt the painful position in which they were placed more keenly than he did. The odds against them at the present time were insuperable. They had to fight Parliament, the Court of Privy Council, Lord Penzance’s Court, the Queen’s Bench Division, the House of Lords. And worst of all the Court of Chancery, which had the power of imprisoning men. The different courts had been appealed to, but they had all decided against them. (“Shame.”)

With such terrible odds against them they could not help what happened. The doctrines that had been preached in Holy Trinity Church for more than forty years, the form of worship as ordered by the Catholic Church, and the Church of England was to be discontinued, and the whole condition of things which had obtained in the parish, was to be entirely altered. He presumed that the daily services, frequent celebrations, opportunities for baptism and churching, and the various other means of grace would in the future be most infrequent. No one could say that he submitted to the bishop to escape prosecution, for in a pastoral letter, which he had issued, he said that whilst the vestments and lights were given up, the matins would not be choral on Sundays. If he had withdrawn the vestments and lights and so forth, and kept up choral matins on Sundays, he should have done what his opponents wanted. His prosecution was now four years old, and they might depend upon it there would not be another. They had won the battle. (Applause.)

He thanked them for the confidence they had reposed in him, and thought that they would give him credit for having upheld their principles and his own as well as he could, and fought for them until he felt that he could fight no longer – (loud applause) – in an honourable manner.

He need not say he was anxious for the future spiritual welfare of the parish (A voice: “I shall never attend church again.”)

The rev. gentleman here said that he did not want the people to discontinue going to church. If the gentleman who had spoken meant that he should not go to Holy Trinity, he (the speaker) had nothing to say ; but he hoped that they would go somewhere else. He would recommend them go to St. Alban’s, All Saint’s Church, or some other neighbouring church where they could make themselves at home. He would earnestly exhort them not to visit upon the Church what had been done to them on account of the present State-ridden condition of the Church of England. The blow had fallen upon them the permission of the Almighty, and was no doubt intended for some wise end.

Mr. J. J. COLLINGS proposed : “The parishioners and congregation of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, thank the Rev. R. W. Enraght for his statement, and beg to assure him that they are perfectly sensible that he has done all that was possible in defence of their spiritual rights. As he will understand the feelings of his people towards him at this bitter crises better than any words of theirs can convey them to him, they abstain for the present from any attempt to express them.”

The Rev. C. SNEATH seconded the motion, remarking that he did so with mixed feelings of pleasure and regret. He regretted that there was a man to be found in the Church of England who had so little gentlemanly feeling in him as to stand in place of Mr. Enraght. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
It was because Mr. Enraght felt that he was fighting a great and important battle for the Church that he had gone through what he had. (Applause.)
He trusted that they would not allow him to leave the parish without being the recipient of some tangible testimonial. (Applause.)
The motion was carried.

Mr. J. J. BLOOD next proposed :- “This meeting of parishioners and congregation of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, hears with mingled grief and indignation that the Bishop of Worcester has revoked the license of their vicar, the Rev. R. W. Enraght, and inhibited him from exercising the cure of souls in this church and parish. They protest against this cruel exercise of episcopal authority, as warranted by no offence whatever against the laws of the Church on his part, and as inflicting on them a most grievous spiritual injury.”

He said that their grief was excessive, and indignation very great. It was with grievous indignation that they had stood by and witnessed the Bishop of Worcester prostitute his episcopal authority at the bidding of a court and judges. Which no loyal member of the Church of England has ever yet acknowledged, and which it was certain no clergyman or layman worthy of that Church ever would acknowledge in the smallest degree, be the consequences what they might.
They must never forget that it was to the Bishop of Worcester that they owed all their troubles. At the bidding of the Church Association the bishop must needs, as soon as asked, hand over their vicar to the tender mercies of Lord Penzance and his sham court.

It was owing to the Erastianism of the Bishop of Worcester that on November 27, 1880, their respective vicar was, for no offence whatever, thrown into Warwick Prison. It was the Erastianism and moral cowardice of Henry of Worcester which had for some four or five years placed that parish and congregation at the mercy of the Church Association, whose name was a byword for intolerance and persecution.

It was by the abuse of episcopal authority, so cruelly exercised by the Bishop of Worcester, that the parish was now deprived of the ministrations of the Rev. R. W. Enraght.
He said solemnly and advisedly that the action of the Bishop of Worcester was a scandal to religion, a disgrace to his office, a gross and unjust abuse of his spiritual powers, and that it called for immediate repudiation of his act by Convocation and by his superior, the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Applause.)

Mr. S. BARMOOR seconded the motion, and emphatically protested against the action of the bishop. He believed that Mr. Enraght’s ministrations had been calculated to build up a thorough Christian character. (Hear, hear.) As far as the new vicar was concerned he was sure public opinion would not be in his favour.
Mr. STANTON supported the proposition, and it was passed.

Mr. T. FATHERS proposed the third resolution, which was as follows :- “The parishioners and congregation of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, hereby express their abhorrence of the act of the Rev. A. H. Watts in accepting the cure of their souls when he knew that it was not canonically vacant, with the object of depriving them of their beloved vicar, of mutilating the services of this church, and of usurping a position in their midst to which he has no canonical right. Under the circumstances, they think it right to inform him that they can in no case voluntarily receive his spiritual ministrations.”

The Rev. T. L. TAYLOR seconded the resolution. He was very sorry for the ignorance which Mr. Watts’s coming into the parish implied. (Hear, hear.)
The Bishop must bear the responsibility of his own act, which, he thought, had not been heard the last of. – The motion was supported by Mr. Reynolds and others, and carried unanimously.

Several policemen were stationed in the room during the meeting, but their services were not required, the proceedings throughout being of a most enthusiastic, but orderly character.

*******

 Birmingham Daily Post – Monday 12 March 1883, Transcribed by D. Sharp