Canon Carter and the ‘Clewer Case’
Published in Windlesora 08 (1989)
© WLHG
In 1844 the parish of Clewer was in a state of great spiritual deprivation: William Henry Roberts, Rector since 1827 had ceased his ministrations in 1840, due to alcoholism, and the living had been put under sequestration. It was not until four years later that the Provost and Fellows of Eton College appointed a new incumbent, the Revd Thomas Thellusson Carter, then aged thirty eight.
Carter was in fact returning to familiar ground. His father had been Vice-Provost of Eton, and Carter himself was bom there. After an Eton education he went to Christchurch Oxford, and in 1832, following his ordination, served as a curate at St Mary’s Reading where he was very unhappy, for he later said there was little spiritual life and too much socialising! In 1833 he became curate of Burnham and stayed for five years until he took a living in Dorset. But the Dorset air did not suit his delicate constitution and so in the spring of 1844 he accepted the Clewer living. Thus began a connection with the parish which was to last until his death in 1901.
T.T.Carter had been influenced by the Tractarian Movement which had begun in Oxford in 1833 and which, by means of a series of pamphlets called Tracts for the Times, had re-awakened the spiritual and devotional life of the Church of England especially regarding the Eucharist. But some Anglicans feared an attempt to lead the Established Church towards Roman Catholicism. Their fears were enhanced by a series of events: the secession to Rome of Newman and friends in 1845, a doctrinal crisis over Baptism in 1850 which led to further secessions including Henry Manning, and the re-establishment in 1851 of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. Hysterical letters to the press took a more sinister turn in the shape of rioting in the London streets.
It was within this spiritual climate that Carter began his ministry in Clewer and he was horrified at the conditions there. Years of neglect had left the parish church in an almost ruinous state: parts of the walls were shored up with iron clamps; the font was used as a convenient receptacle for the mens’ hats during the service; and the poor were unable to worship there because they could not afford the pew rents, a common abuse which had grown up in the eighteenth century. But one of the worst practices was that of the Churchwardens distributing half the alms to those who came to the Eucharist — this had the effect of repelling many from the Sacrament, while those who received it were looked upon as beggars.
As if all this were not enough the parish itself was in spiritual and moral disarray. The people had been neglected for a considerable time and this had caused concem to other clergymen in the town. The new church of Holy Trinity Windsor had opened in 1844 to serve both the Garrison and that part of Clewer parish which was within the Borough. Clewer parish was compensated for this territorial loss by the acquisition of the hamlet of Dedworth, hitherto part of Windsor parish, though separated from it geographically. The people of Dedworth were poor, as were the majority of Carter’s parishioners, not only in Clewer village itself, but also in the hamlets of Spital and Clewer Green which made up the rest of this large and diverse parish. There was also a notorious slum area known as Clewer Fields, where in addition to poverty, other social evils such as drunkenness and prostitution were rife. In 1849 moral rescue work was begun in this district which resulted in the founding of the Community of St John Baptist. But there were wealthy and influential parishioners too, and as will be seen, they proved to be a mixed blessing.
In accordance with Tractarian teaching, Carter began the ominous task of instilling order and decency into the worship, and to restoring the fabric of the church building. This was to take about fifteen years but by the end of it there were regular services in a building which had been sympathetically restored by the architect Henry Woodyer. Nor had Carter neglected the material needs of the poor: a benefit society had been established; part of the glebe had been given for allotments; house to house visiting was begun; and a Temperance Society had been formed to fight the drink problem. Also, the Community of St John Baptist of which Carter was the Co-Founder, had by now extended its original work and was caring for orphans and the sick poor.
But within the wider Church events were turning in a sad direction. The opponents of the Tractarians were becoming more vocal and were joined by a violent minority who in 1850 began a campaign of disrupting services and damaging church interiors. A new generation of clergy was arising who placed added emphasis on ceremonial. They were soon dubbed ‘ritualists’ and became the target for the protesters who introduced a new tactic — legal proceedings in order to force the removal of articles such as candlesticks, crosses or crucifixes, and altar cloths, and to prevent the wearing of Eucharistic vestments. The rubric in the Prayer Book stated that such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof… shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Nowhere did it specify exactly which ‘ornaments’ were in use in 1549, and this ambiguity led to much strife over the next few years.
A number of famous court cases followed to the growing consternation of men like Carter who were mindful of the harm this was doing to the Church. The situation was not helped by the fact that the same court frequently reversed judgement from one case to the next, so that ornaments once declared lawful might be declared unlawful a few months later. But real hardship was being caused not only to the clergy who stood in danger of losing their benefices should the court find against them, but also to their congregations who faced physical assault from the protesters. In 1860 the English Church Union was formed to assist those who were being harassed, and the legal costs of many persecuted clergy were paid through the establishment of a defence fund. Five years later the Church Association was formed, its chief aim being to fight ritualism by legal action.
As the 1870’s dawned the situation looked very black indeed and now the clouds began to gather over Clewer. Carter’s old friend Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, himself a mild Tractarian, was translated to the diocese of Winchester, and his place at Oxford was taken by John Fielder Mackarness. The new Bishop was not a Tractarian but he was beyond doubt a pastor who cared deeply about his clergy and people and was determined to deal fairly with everyone. But Carter’s influential parishioners had been viewing his ‘improvements’ to the church with mounting indignation, and they saw the arrival of a new Bishop as the ideal opportunity to make trouble for their incumbent. Therefore at Easter 1871 a petition signed by 125 Clewer parishioners was presented to the Bishop outlining the reasons why they felt unable to attend their parish church.
Among the reasons given were that Carter preached the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist; that he bowed ‘to idols’; that he directed the removal of tablets relating to church bequests; that a removable cross was placed on the Communion Table and that it ‘is worshipped by the Sisters of Mercy with little children under their care on entering and leaving the Church’; that a cross had been fixed on the screen and a ‘Roman Catholic’ cross in the churchyard ‘in defiance of our Protestant faith’. The petitioners concluded as follows: ‘We forebear entering further into the details of the notorious Practices at Clewer which are abhorrent to the senior inhabitants…but we desire in true Christian Spirit to seek your Lordship’s counsel…in the hope that your Lordship’s wisdom may predominate in defending our inherent rights to our ancient Church as established for the welfare and future happiness of the Subjects of our beloved Sovereign…’
The copy of this petition preserved in the Bodleian Library does not include the 125 names, but doubtless it came as a cruel and heartless blow, for Carter was at this time a very sick man. A combination of overwork and grief following the death of his wife culminated in total collapse; no doubt the growing hostility of many who, by virtue of their social status, considered themselves to be ’senior inhabitants’ contributed to his illness. The Bishop’s response has not been preserved, but in view of later events it may be guessed where his sympathies lay. In the meantime he granted Carter a license of non-residence so that he might go abroad to recover his health, and perhaps hoped that during Carter’s absence the controversy would abate.
This period of convalescence lasted for something like two years, the parish being run meanwhile by his curates.
Carter’s opponents were not prepared to acquiesce simply because he was a sick man. Despite his absence pastoral work was proceeding in earnest in the Clewer Fields area, pioneered by the Community of St John Baptist, and by this time under the care of Carter’s senior curate the Revd G.D.Nicholas. When Carter returned to duty in July 1872 the Clewer St Stephen’s Mission, which was the result of this endeavour, was being viewed with growing suspicion by the ’senior inhabitants’ of the parish who saw it as yet another Romish inroad. A further petition was made to the Bishop, but Carter too was not without support. There is in the archives of the Community of St John Baptist a Memorial to Carter dated November 17th 1873 and signed by 53 worshippers at Clewer who lived outside the parish. It expressed their deep gratitude and affection ‘as a proof of the perfect confidence which we have in your judgement.’
Carter was deeply moved and replied with characteristic humility: ‘I am thankful for your confidence and favourable estimate of what I have endeavoured to do…I can truly say that it has been, throughout my ministry…my one aim and desire to teach and to practice only what the Church of England intended as I most conscientiously believe to maintain as the rightful Catholic heritage of her children. I would ask you to remember me sometimes in your prayers that in these times of peculiar difficulty and fears as to what may be about to come upon us, I may be guided by God’s Holy Spirit in all things. And also that you would pray for this parish that its divisions may be healed and the hearts of all enlarged to receive the Truth in the love of it.” This reply summarises the Tractarian standpoint, namely that the movement was a return to the principles of the early undivided Church rather than an imitation of Roman Catholic usages.
Until this time ecclesiastical law suits including ‘ritualist’ cases had been heard in a church court — the Court of Arches, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as Court of Appeal. But in 1874 Parliament passed what Disraeli called ‘a Bill to put down ritualism.’ This was the Public Worship Regulation Act and it established a new civil court, to be presided over by Lord Penzance a former Divorce Court judge. Many churchmen were scandalised at what seemed to be outright interference by the State in ecclesiastical matters and were determined to ignore the new court. During the next few years many clergy were brought to trial under the terms of the new Act, and of those found guilty five were sent to prison. But although they had been taken to court on charges of alleged ritualism they were imprisoned for contempt for refusing to obey the ruling of what they regarded as a secular court.
Armed with the ammunition of the new Act Carter’s opponents went into action once more. The Act gave leave to a number of ‘aggrieved parishioners’ to make representations to the Bishop who had the power of veto over whether or not legal proceedings should be made. In 1877 Captain Thomas Bulkeley of Clewer Lodge along with certain others attempted to bring charges against Carter, and on September 3rd 1877 this was vetoed by Bishop Mackarness. Bulkeley was not a worshipper at Clewer church, preferring to worship at the Garrison church of Holy Trinity when residing at Clewer Lodge. But the real force behind Bulkeley and all who took up the anti-Carter cause was the Church Association. Mackarness later wrote to the Diocesan clergy: ‘Having discovered that the persons who would really maintain the suit were strangers to the parish, I withheld my consent.’ Writing more forthrightly to the Archdeacon of Berkshire he said: ‘I refused, because a bond, studiously concealed from me, was accidentally discovered, which gave as I thought, to persons unconnected with the parish the control and direction of the intended suit.’
So it seemed that the Act was ineffective if the Bishop was prepared to exercise his right of veto. But there was on the Statute Book another Act, passed primarily to deal with dishonest or immoral clergy; this was the Church Discipline Act of 1840. In 1878 Mr Edmund Foster of Clewer Manor sought to bring proceedings against Carter under the 1840 Act, but again the Bishop refused to act: ‘the complainant having candidly stated that he had allowed a well-known Association, foreign to the parish, to use his name. When a third application reached me, it was impossible for me to doubt that members of this Association were the real movers in the whole business. I found myself in conflict with a wealthy and fanatical body, which might have as little scruple in ruining a Bishop with law-costs, as in turning the key of a prison door on a refactory parish priest…”
It was this third application which became the crux of the matter. The Church Association found a new complainant, Dr Frederick Guilder Julius of The Hermitage, Clewer Green. Whilst legally a parishioner Julius rarely resided within the parish and did not attend the church; indeed the affidavit dated December 28th 1878 was sworn at Her Majesty’s Consular Court in Cairo. The Bishop was of a mind to veto the application as before. But now the Church Association endeavoured to force the Bishop’s hand by challenging the right of veto. Section 3 of the Church Discipline Act stated that °…in every case of any clerk in holy orders…who may be charged with any offence against the laws ecclesiastical, or concerning whom there may exist scandal or evil report…it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese…on the application of any party complaining thereof,…to issue a commission under his hand and seal…for the purpose of making inquiry as to the grounds of such charge or report…’
Undaunted by the Bishop’s veto Julius applied to the Queen’s Bench Division for a writ of mandamus to force the Bishop to issue a Commission of Inquiry. Bishop Mackamess decided to stand firm and face the court himself. “My final determination to appear against it was formed.,…certainly not out of any special personal liking for ceremonial novelties, but in view of the importance of vindicating the true independence of the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as handed down in England from the earliest times.’
~The case was heard in February and March 1879, the Judges finding in favour of Julius in the following terms: ‘that the above enactment does not confer a discretion on the bishop, but imposes on him an obligation to proceed when complaint is made to him against a clergyman in respect of that which constitutes a sufficient ecclesiastical offence.” The Bishop appealed and the case was heard before the Lords Justice Bramwell, Baggallay and Thesiger. The original case had focused largely upon section 3 of the Church Discipline Act, but in the Court of Appeal attention switched to Carter and to Julius’ charges against him. For the first time we learn the exact charges: the wearing of Eucharistic vestments; mixing water with the wine at the Offertory; standing at the west side of the Communion table with back turned to the congregation; bowing during the prayer of Consecration and elevating the bread and wine; making the sign of the cross; using lighted altar candles; and singing the Agnus Dei.
The outcome of the Bishop’s appeal was a reversal of the Queen’s Bench decision: ‘When a complaint is made under the Church Discipline Act, s. 3,…the bishop has a discretion whether he will issue a commission to inquire into the truth of the complaint, and no mandamus will lie to compel him to do so.” But this was not the end: Julius took the case to the House of Lords. Once more attention was focused not on the original charges but on the Bishop’s right of veto. The Lords of Appeal were the Lord Chancellor (Lord Caims), together with Lords Selbourne, Blackburn and, ironically, Penzance. They upheld the Court of Appeal: Julius had finally lost his case and the Bishop’s veto was never questioned again.
The case of Julius v. the Bishop of Oxford made legal history in establishing the principle that if a party has a discretion in a matter i.e. they may act in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean they must do so. The Clewer case is cited when this point of law is at issue and has been used as recently as July 1986.
The case was settled as far as the law was concerned, but for Carter personally it was far from over. Throughout the proceedings he had been assured of the support of the majority of his parishioners who were mindful of the true pastoral nature of his ministry amongst them. In 1878 at the start of the trouble a public meeting had been held and a resolution passed ‘that this meeting desires to express its deep sympathy with the rector of this parish under the persecution with which he is threatened, and its confidence in him that he will maintain those principles for which he has ever contended.” Two further addresses expressing similar sentiments were sent to Carter together with 316 and 568 signatures respectively.
But the ceremonial for which Carter was prepared to stand trial was in the eyes of the law, unlawful. Furthermore, Carter knew full well that Bishop Mackarness personally disapproved of what he called ‘ceremonial novelties.” The Bishop’s defence of Carter had been purely pastoral, and Carter knew he might well be called upon to give up those practices under obedience. Carter’s dilemma singled him out from the extremists who would have defied the Bishop rather than accept compromise. But neither would Carter compromise his beliefs and so in March 1880 he resigned the Clewer benefice: ‘I cannot allow myself to take advantage of your Lordship’s forbearance while continuing to act contrary to your strongly-expressed desire; and this is in the face of a not undivided parish. I am therefore constrained, as my only alternative…to place the resignation of my cure in your Lordship’s hands…’
As soon as news broke in the parish there was a general outcry, and those present at the Easter Vestry requested the Churchwardens to urge the Bishop to take no irrevocable step until a public meeting had been held. But when it was held the public meeting was not without a dissenting voice — a Mr Cripps of Clewer Green heckled the speakers and was met with boos, hisses, groans, laughter and cries of ’sit down.’ Two letters of protest were read out, one being from Edmund Foster, the second complainant, objecting to any attempt to persuade Carter to stay. Notwithstanding these minor protests, the meeting passed a resolution that a memorial should be sent to both Carter and the Bishop urging the status quo.22
In a letter to the Churchwardens dated April 12th 1880 the Bishop replied: ‘Let me ask you to assure your neighbours that I fully recognise the zeal and devotion which have marked the whole course of your Rector’s Ministry, though there have been some comparatively recent changes in the conduct of the services of the Church of which I did not approve…I am truly sorry that your parish should lose the services of a Pastor who has so well deserved your affection, but I am unable to see any grounds for refusing to accept his resignation or for supposing that he would wish me to do so…” Carter himself replied to the Churchwardens in the following terms: ‘…Nothing can be more valued by me than the assurance…of the feelings entertained towards me by so large a body of the parishioners… The convictions under which I was led to take this step continue to weigh with me as at the first.. No wish to shrink from responsibility, still less any want of earnest care for the welfare of the parish, influenced me. But a complication of circumstances had arisen,…in consequence of which I could not, as I believed, conscientiously continue in the position which I had so long occupied.’
And so all that remained was the formality of leaving. A crowded meeting of well-wishers squeezed into St Katherine’s Infant School, and there Carter was presented with an illuminated address containing the names of the subscribers to his parting gift, a ‘handsome clock’ which is now in the care of the Community of St John Baptist, and is still in working order. Whilst the self-styled ’senior inhabitants’, the Fosters, the Goochs, the Barrys and the Bulkeleys congratulated themselves on the ousting of their aged and ailing pastor, the poor gave their pence to this parting gift.
But Carter did not move far away, indeed he did not leave Clewer at all because he now took up full time duty as Warden of the Community of St John Baptist with the support of the Bishop. Mindful of his domestic plight, (for having resigned as Rector he was now homeless) a house was built for him by public subscription. This was St John’s Lodge, built opposite the Convent in Hatch Lane, and it remained the Warden’s residence until its demolition in 1963.
There is in the oral tradition of the Community of St John Baptist a story that in later years Carter and Dr Julius met for the first time at a house on Clewer Hill. Julius was charmed by him and expressed regret at having commenced litigation. The two men shook hands and parted as friends. The ceremonial practices which gave rise to the original protest might seem trivial now and are commonplace in most Anglican churches today — the result of the religious liberty won by men such as Carter. But the Public Worship Regulation Act remained on Statute Book until 1962 although it was in reality a dead letter by the turn of the century. Perhaps the real hero of the Clewer case is Bishop Mackarness who took his pastoral role so seriously that he was prepared to go (and went) to the highest court in the land in defence of an aged and ailing priest even though he disagreed on the points originally at issue.
Carter spent the remaining years of his life ministering to the Community of St John Baptist, visiting their many branch houses and celebrating the Eucharist. Two days before his death he was present at the Chapter which re-elected Mother Betha as Superior. Next day he felt poorly and retired to bed: the following day, October 28th 1901 he died peacefully aged 93 years. His body, clad in vestments, the wearing of which had cost him so much, was laid at St John’s Lodge for two days, during which time many came to pay their last respects. He was buried in Clewer Churchyard on October 31st and the funeral procession from the Convent to the graveside was a quarter of a mile long with 100 clergy and 150 Sisters. T.T.Carter had outlived most of his opponents although one critic who watched the cortege described it as ‘Popish Mummery.” But the writer of the obituary in the Daily Telegraph described him as ‘the last Tractarian’: perhaps that sums him up best of all.
Valerie Bonham
Acknowledgements
The Community of St John Baptist, Clewer; Pusey House, Oxford; the Department of Western MSS, Bodleian Library; St Deiniol’s Library, Hawarden; Mr Norman Phillips.
Windsor Local History Group 