CHURCHMEN DIVIDED

Evening Star, Issue 20958, 24 November 1931, Page 14

CHURCHMEN DIVIDED

REGTGR AND “ IMAGES " REMOVAL OF TWO FIGURES PETITION FOR RESTORATION. The existence of dissension in an Anglican parish of Mundesley, Norfolk, ,vas revealed on September 23, when the chancellor, Mr J. K. North, at a special sitting of the Norwich Consistory Court, heard evidence and argument regarding a petition and cross petition relating to the removal of two figures from Mundesley Church. The matter arose on a petition by Mr S. A. Randall, a parishioner, for a faculty order that the figures of the Blessed Virgin and St. John, which were on either side of the crucifix over the chancel arch as a memorial, duly authorised by faculty, and which had been removed from position, or caused to he removed, by the present rector, the Rev. Dr T. J. Williams-Fisher, should he restored to their original positions. The court also had before it a crosspetition, issued by the rector, the churchwardens, and the Parochial Church Council, asking for authorisation of the removal of the two figures, and also for sanction to remove the crucifix, substituting a carved xross in harmony with the tone and architecture of the screen. Mr P. R. Eaton, solicitor, Proctor ot the Norwich Consistorial Court, who appeared for Mr Randall, said that Dr Fisher’s predecessor was a High Churchman. 44 In or about 1928, ’ he added, “a scheme was inaugurated for the erection of a chancel screen. This brought forward the offer as a memorial of a Rood beam and figures. The offer was accepted and designs were prepared by an eminent architect for a complete scheme incorporating the Rood beam and figures. No single person objected .to them. APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNS. 44 In the meantime, the Rev. T. Tegs Harvey, a former incumbent, died, and with the approval of his widow the screen was adopted as a memorial to him. A letter was sent to every house in the parish explaining this, and asking for support, which was general and generous. An application for a faculty was granted after the designs had been approved by the Bishop’s Advisory .Committee. No objection was raised by “ Tho present rector,” continued Mi Eaton, “ was instituted on November 29 1929, and inducted .on December o, 1929 • the screen and figures being erected on December 16, 1929, actually with his knowledge and during his incumbency—no objection being raised bv him or anyone else. Without authority ot any kind the present rector, on or about May 18 last, removed or caused to be removed, two of the figures. Mr Randall felt that matters had reached a state when nothing was safe, and accordingly he—with great reluctance commenced these proceedings. Mr Randall gave evidence as to the removal of the figures, and stated tl!iat he had remonstrated with tne rectoi. Mi (Sidney L. Greaves, of The Rookery Mundesley, who was called by the rector said that he thought it was for tho good of the parish that the crucifix and the images should be removed, because it was the reason for serious religious division. APPEAL TO THE RECTOR. When Dr Fisher was about to give evidence the chancellor asked him if he could not agree to aliow tho figures to remain in the church. . , , Dr Fisher; In my conscience that could never be, nor in the conscience ot maw in Mundesley. Tht Chancellor: What I want to do is to make peace. Just think what the whole of our church and clergy aie for, they are to help people to live according to God’s law. How can those figures hinder that? , , , Dr Fisher: Because they are a broach of (V.d s own law—the Second Com- ™ wfe^hancellor; Why not allow the figures to go back? ...... Hr Fisher; No, sir, and that is a matter of absolute conscience. Witness asserted that the number of people who did not want the images was greater than the number who did. “ I am prepared to put that to the test of a ballot,” he added, that the parishioners be asked plainly: P°,y°iJ want a crucifix or do you not. 1 am prepared to take their decision if it is a secret ballot. As for the rest, it is impossible for me in any circumstances to countenance anything like a crucifix over the Rood in view of the law of the church which condemns it. “ A VERY WRONG THING.” The Chancellor, at tho conclusion of the evidence and the address, sflid : 1 am sorry to say that Dr Fisher did a very wrong and criminal thing in, without leave, taking these figures away.- It he objected to them, subject to certain legal considerations, he hadm, perfect right to come and apply for a faculty to do so.” , Dr Fisher: May I apologise for that action ? , , The Chancellor; You have a great deal to apologise for. Very likely you have not heard tho last of _ it. I am sorry to sav that Dr Fisher did not only what was‘highly improper, but, it is also arguable, a criminal offence, for which I imagine he could be taken before the magistrates. “ In regard to the other petition asking for a confirmatory faculty. Dr Fisher now wants what is done legalised if I have power to legalise it. I am not quite sure about that. He asks for that on the ground that these figures are mischievous in inducing a form of worship which our English Church has long abolished. That wants very carefully considering, because, however much I blame Dr Fisher, however badly he has acted, if is entitled on that ground I must give iudgment in his favour.” ' Hie Chancellor said that he would reserve judgment, and probably deliver it in tho Consistory Court in October or in November.