The Tribulations of Father Ommanney: Press reports of the Sheffield Ritualist affair, 1882-1883

Part Two: An unseemly manifestation of feeling

    George Campbell Ommanney from Ommanney of Sheffield. 


We left Mr. Wynn with the wind in his sails following the Stipendiary's decision. But his opponent was never going to give way quite so easily... 

Western Daily Press, 4 April 1883 
THE EXTRAORDINARY SCENE IN A CHURCH 
The following accounts of the dispute which took place at St. Matthew’s Church, Sheffield, on Monday [2^nd April], have been published: —

The Rev. G. C. Ommanney states:—“I hear that Mr Wynn says that we began service before the time. That is a mistake. Nothing took place until after the blessing had been pronounced; but, whilst I was consuming what remained of the Blessed Sacrament, Mr Wynn came up. He tried to prevent Mr Bindley giving me the wine and water to assist me in consuming what remained in the chalice. I took the wine from Mr Bindley, and Mr Wynn seized the hand in which he held the cruet. I tried to reach the wafer, but Mr Wynn pushed me on one side. He said, “I can’t allow this; the service is over,” or something to that effect, and this he repeated several times whilst I asked Mr Bindley to give me the water. In the struggle for the vessel, however, the contents were spilt. I called up some of those who were in the church and requested them to remove Mr Wynn. He cautioned them not to touch him, and they did not do so. He then went outside the rails, and after prayers I went into the vestry with Mr Bindley, and he followed us. I told him that I was ashamed for him behaving so. He said, ‘As the Archbishop is acquiescent, I am going to set for myself.’ Quite politely I asked him to leave the vestry, telling him that it was my vestry, but he declined to do so. I replied, ‘I shall not use violence, but I shall just remove you,’ and I took hold of his arm to put him out. I have the right to remove him from the vestry if he is not there for the performance of his duties. He pushed me, and I fell against the door. I went out into the church, and he followed me. I asked Mr Bindley and two young men who were present to prevent him going in again, and they did so. I think he struggled with them there, but I am not quite sure. I have felt compelled to take proceedings in the matter, and I have ordered a summons to be issued against him for brawling, or as it is specially stated in 23 and 24 Vict., I believe, for being guilty of ‘riotous, irreverent, and indecent behaviour in church.’ I think the summons will be returnable for Friday. I have the greatest objection to appearing in a police court; but I could not allow the matter to pass. I have been deeply grieved that there should have been such a disgraceful scene at the celebration of the Blessed Sacrament, and as I am afraid it might occur again, I think I shall not celebrate again until after the summons is heard, unless, of course, it is after Sunday.”

Mr Walter Wynn says:—“Yesterday being the first Sunday in the month, Holy Communion was as usual celebrated at midday, after morning Communion service I asked Mr Ommanney if he was going to have a layman to assist him. He said, ‘No, I never do on the first Sunday of the month at the midday celebration.’ I told him I was going to put a stop to his practice of having acolytes, and that I should resist their entrance within the rails. There was a celebration this morning at half-past seven, at which I was present. I arrived there at the half-hour, but I found they had already reached the middle of the epistle; they must have begun considerably before the time. Mr Bindley, who was ‘run’ for the people’s warden, was within the rails. Mr Bindley was going to the chair, on which were a bottle of wine and a glass jug of water. He was just handing them to Mr Ommanney in order that he might wash out the chalice, when I stepped in between them and said, ‘I cannot allow anything of the kind, and shall put a stop to the washing out of the cup.’ Mr Ommanney asked me to leave, and I refused to do so.I got hold of the bottle of wine which Mr Bindley had, and tried to prevent him pouring any out, but he passed it round me, and Mr Ommanney got it. I did the same with the glass vessel of water, and in the scuffle to keep hold we spilled the contents. Mr Ommanney then called to two or three of his friends to remove me, motioning to some of the congregation, and saying, ‘I want you to remove Mr Wynn from here.’ I cautioned them, saying that I was churchwarden, and telling them that they must not interfere between me and my duties. They came forward to the rails, but did not touch me or do anything further. Mr Ommanney, Mr Bindley, and I were inside the rails at the time, but we left, and all went into the vestry together. Mr Ommanney ordered me out of the vestry, saying it was his private room. I told him that he would not find it so, as I should spoil him in his confessional business there some night. He got hold of me by the shoulder, and tried to put me out. I pushed him away, and he made another attempt with more strength. I gave him a push with considerable force, and he went against the vestry door. He then said he should fetch some man in to turn me out. He went into the church and I followed him. Mr Bindley and two others got between me and the passage leading to the vestry, so that I could not return. Mr Ommanney asked them to keep me out, and said that if I struck them they were to summon me. I did no attempt to do so, but I left. Some time ago I wrote to the Archbishop of York, saying if he did not interfere I should be compelled to resort to further aggressions, and this is one of them. I cannot say how I intend to do the latter. It will be difficult, because it does not take place until after the service is over; but I think I shall manage.”

Sheffield Independent, 5 April 1883

Both Mr Ommanney and Mr Wynn are to be pitied. The latter is the representative of the strong Low Church element which exists in the parish, and as such probably considers that something more is demanded of him than an attitude of more or less passive quiescence. The former, if large and apparently earnest congregations are any indication of success, is doing a work at St. Matthew’s never attained by either of his predecessors. Everything comes to him who waits, and Mr. Wynn sees that whilst Mr. Ommanney is quietly working in church and parish, the ground under his own feet is so rapidly slipping away that in a year or two there will  hardly be any members of the congregation not in perfect accord with the Vicar’s views and his mode of conduction service. 

Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 6 April 1883

It was freely stated in the town yesterday that the Archbishop of York had decided upon taking certain steps in the form of issuing a monition or other wise against the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, vicar of St Matthew’s, with regard to the practices of which Mr. Wynn and others of his parishioners have complained. On inquiry at Mr. Ommanney’s residence last night our representative learnt that he was still at Barlow, and would not return until the morning… 

Portsmouth Evening News, 6 April 1883

At the Sheffield Town Hall this morning, Walter Wynn, the people’s warden at St. Matthew’s Church, was summoned by the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, the vicar, for riotous, violent, and indecent behaviour in church, and also with assaulting Mr. Bindley, a layman, who assisted the vicar in the service…

The Court was crowded. For the prosecution it was submitted that the churchwarden had no right to physically interrupt the service, but the Stipendiary said if Mr. Ommanney was committing an unlawful act, not warranted by the prayer book, it would take a deal to convince him that the defendant’s conduct had been violent and indecent. Mr. Ommanney was examined, and detailed the scuffle near the altar. In examination he was pressed as to whether he did not know that Mr. Green, the former vicar of Miles Platting, had been imprisoned, partly for the ritualistic practice of washing the chalice, but Mr. Ommanney’s solicitor objected, and advised his client not to reply, lest he should incriminate himself. There was great laughter and sensation in the court at this, and the interest increased when the complainant admitted that the Archbishop had written to him relative to his practices. Evidence was given of the assault on Mr. Bindley, the acolyte, and then Mr. Thomas, for the defendant, maintained that Mr. Ommanney, in mingling water with wine, and in allowing a layman to act as a minister, had acted illegally, and that defendant was justified in interrupting. So thought the Stipendiary, and dismissed both summonses. There was loud applause in court at his decision.

[A much more detailed description of the hearing – too lengthy for even this blog – can be found in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph of 7^th April 1883.]

Sheffield Independent, 7 April 1883

Contrary to expectation, the Rev. G. C. Ommanney was not at evening service at St. Matthew’s last night, but was at the distribution of prizes to the successful students at the High School for Girls. The prayers were read by Mr. Griffin, the curate. Mr. Bindley, wearing a cassock and surplice, occupied a seat in the chancel. Mr. Wynn formed one of the congregation, his attendance being probably due to an expectation that something in reference to himself might be said. Nothing, as yet, is known as to the course which Mr. Ommanney will now pursue in regard to the assistance of a “server” at the celebration of Communion; but, probably, in view of the Stipendiary’s decision yesterday, he will consider it desirable to dispense with such assistance in future. Mr. Wynn’s future action will doubtless be guided by circumstances. Mr. Ommanney has not yet received a “monition” from the Archbishop. But it is said that one may be expected in the course of a few days. 

Sheffield Independent, 9 April 1883 
RITUALISM IN SHEFFIELD

ANOTHER “SCENE” AT ST. MATTHEW’S

MR WYNN THREATENED BY A MOB

The “painful differences” at St. Matthew’s are not likely to be healed up very speedily. Indeed the sequel to the case heard at the Town Hall last Friday promises to be an eventful and exciting one. The summons taken out by the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, the vicar, against Mr. Walter Wynn, the people’s warden, for “riotous, violent, and indecent behaviour” at St. Matthew’s, was, it will be remembered, dismissed, the Stipendiary holding that the defendant, in his capacity as churchwarden, did no more than was necessary against Mr. Bindley acting as server, and interposed to prevent the mingling of the water and wine in the chalice. Encouraged by the Stipendiary’s decision, Mr. Wynn is even still more determined to object to Ritualistic innovations, and to interfere whenever illegal practices are introduced. Inasmuch as Mr. Ommanney appears to be equally determined to adhere to these practices, and possesses a firm will and great strength of purpose, the services at St. Matthew’s are likely to have a turbulent leaven for some time to come.

The early celebration at the church yesterday morning did not pass over without an instance of what both men are prepared to “do and dare” for conscience sake, and the result was another “scene”. The service began at eight o’clock, and at that time Mr. Wynn, Mr. Hobson, and Mr. Spiers had already entered the edifice, occupying the seats on the left of the central aisle. On the opposite side sat Mr. Longden, the vicar’s churchwarden; and Mr. Bindley and Mr. Brough, who gave evidence in the recent Police Court proceedings, were also present. The congregation numbered about forty, but probably one-third of these had simply come to church through motives of curiosity, for they appeared to be ignorant of the mode of worship that obtains amongst the Ritualists, neither bowing nor bending the knee. Mr. Bindley did not act as server—he was this time simply a worshipper. The celebrant at the Communion was the Rev. J. E. Griffin, the curate; and Mr. Ommanney did duty as assistant. There were about twenty Communicants, nearly half of whom were ladies. When they had partaken of the bread and wine, and walked (with folded hands and devout looks) down the aisle to their seats again, a similar “scene” to that which caused so much comment last week was witnessed. Mr. Wynn quitted his pew when the blessing had been pronounced, and walked along the chancel to the Communion rails, expecting that another attempt would be made to wash the chalice. At this time both the celebrant and his assistant had their backs to the people, and judging from the way in which Mr. Wynn bent his head aside he must have had some difficulty in seeing what the clergymen were doing. He waited for a little time, he says, until Mr. Griffin had consumed the consecrated wine, and then, finding that Mr. Ommanney intended pouring wine and water into the chalice, he stepped nearer the Communion table, and suddenly thrust out his arms, interposing them so effectually between Mr. Griffin and Mr. Ommanney that it was impossible for Mr. Griffin to receive the liquid in the cup. Mr. Ommanney, notwithstanding this opposition, endeavoured to pour wine into the chalice, but his effort was unsuccessful, Mr. Wynn firmly maintaining his position. There was a good deal of suppressed excitement amongst some of the congregation—craning of necks, and shifting of positions, in the hope of hearing what was said. Only the murmur of angry voices, however, reached the worshippers, and scarcely a word could be distinguished. It is a fact, nevertheless, that Mr. Ommanney peremptorily ordered Mr. Wynn to leave the chancel, and that the people’s warden refused, on the ground that the Vicar was about to perform an illegal act, which he was thoroughly prepared to prevent. After Mr. Wynn had put his arms between the celebrant and the assistant, Mr. Ommanney said: “You have prevented me doing this by violence, and I protest against it.” Then he placed the cruets of wine and water on a chair, and noticing that Mr. Wynn was going towards them, evidently with the intention of taking the vessels away, he said: “I am not going to do it now.” He also told Mr. Wynn that he should not resist him by force; and the people’s warden having gained his object, did not attempt to touch the cruets, but left the space within the Communion rails, and returned to his seat in the body of the church. But he did not stay there long. As soon as Mr. Griffin and Mr. Ommanney had entered the vestry he followed. Then Mr. Longden, the vicar’s warden, went in; then Mr. Hobson. Mr. Spiers, and Mr. Bindley. In a few seconds the latter re-entered the church, and whispered here and there to some Ritualist, and bye-and-bye there was a cluster of young men on the threshold of the vestry. Most of the ladies in the church had their heads bowed as if in prayer; but it seemed as if the little knot of muscular Christians about the doorway had gathered for a different purpose. They gave one the impression that they were waiting for some signal to storm the vestry, and eject Mr. Wynn. Yet no such deed of valour was performed. The little group remained passive, and after listening, apparently to what was going on between Mr. Ommanney and Mr. Wynn, almost stealthily returned to their pews. As to what occurred in the vestry the Vicar is reticent. On the other hand, Mr. Wynn says he expressed surprise that Mr. Ommanney should have again attempted the ceremony of washing the chalice after the Stipendiary’s decision, and that Mr. Longden, essaying to champion the Vicar, was stopped by Mr. Ommanney, who said he did not wish the matter to be argued there, but should summon the people’s warden for brawling.

Our representative, who was present at the celebration, subsequently had an interview with the Rev. G. G. Ommanney, and obtained from him the following statement: The Rev. J. E. Griffin celebrated, and I assisted him. After the communicants had returned to their seats, and whilst I was standing near the celebrant with the vessels containing the wine and water, Mr. Wynn came up, and stood at the Communion rails. I said to him, “I forbid you, Mr Wynn, to enter this part of the church.” Mr. Wynn replied, “You are going to do an illegal action, and I shall prevent you.” Then as I was going to pour a little wine and water into the chalice to assist Mr. Griffin in consuming what remained of the sacrament, Mr. Wynn pushed in between us, stretching out his arms over the Communion table, and trying to seize first the cup, and then the wine which I held in my hand. I then said, after a short struggle, “You have prevented me doing this by violence. I protest against it.” I then put the vessels containing the wine and water on a chair, and Mr. Wynn went towards them, apparently intending to carry them away, but I said, “I am not going to do it now.” Mr. Wynn then returned to his pew, and Mr. Griffin was obliged to disobey the rubric and carry some portion of the consecrated substance out of church.

Mr Wynn’s narrative differs somewhat from that of the Vicar’s. The people’s warden stated yesterday, in an interview with our representative: —The celebration continued in the way adopted by Mr. Ommanney until the blessing was pronounced, and then I walked up to the Communion rails. Previously, however, I had noticed Mr. Ommanney bring in the cruets of wine and water, and anticipated that he intended to use them in the ceremony of washing the cup. So I was quite prepared, after the blessing was pronounced, to walk up to the chancel rails. I did so, and on getting there waited until Mr. Griffin, the celebrant, had consumed the consecrated wine. Not until he turned towards Mr. Ommanney, who was close by, holding in his hands the cruets of wine and water, did I interfere. Mr. Ommanney was about to pour some wine into the cup when I stepped in between him and his curate. I neither touched Mr. Griffin nor Ommanney with my hands. I simply stretched out my arms to keep the Vicar and the celebrant apart. Then Mr. Ommanney said: “Mr. Wynn, I order you out of the chancel.” I retained my position; but they tried to pour the wine into the cup. Mr. Ommanney then said: “I protest against your interference, but shall not resist it by force.” At the same time he carried the two vessels to the right of the Communion table, and placed them on a chair. I imagined he was about to endeavour to eject me, but he said nothing more. I now went towards the table to take the decanters away, but Mr. Ommanney said, “I told you I have protested, and I do not intend to use them.” When he said this, I came out of the space within the Communion rails, and returned to my pew. After Mr. Ommanney and Mr. Griffin left the chancel, I followed them into the vestry. Mr. Longden (the vicar’s warden), Mr. Hobson, Mr. Spiers, and Mr. Bindley came in also. I expressed my surprise that Mr. Ommanney should again attempt such a ceremony after the events of the past week. I said if he really wanted to prevent any unseemly scene in the church he would have waited until the Stipendiary’s decision had been appealed against. Mr. Longden took up the conversation, but Mr. Ommanney told him not to argue the point. Then, turning toward me, Mr. Ommanney said: “I shall not argue the matter with you. I shall summon you for brawling.” I then left the vestry, and shortly afterwards quitted the church.

At the morning service the Rev. G. C. Ommanney read the lessons, and the Rev. J. E. Griffin preached. The church was crowded, and the congregation included Mr. Wynn, but there was no interruption whatever. It was announced by Mr. Ommanney that there would be early communion on Tuesday and Thursday, when it is not improbable there will be yet another “scene”, for the people’s warden has expressed his intention of preventing on every possible occasion the washing of the cup to which he so strongly objects.

As it was pretty well known that Mr. Ommanney would preach last evening, a crowded congregation was attracted to the church last night. There was nothing of a special character in connection with the service, except that Mr. Ommanney asked for “the prayers of the congregation for Edward Wynn, who is seriously ill.” It was only known to a few of the congregation that this was Mr. Walter Wynn’s father, who is said to be in a dying state. The rev. gentleman preached from the text, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” Before beginning his sermon he said: Looking at the fact that this congregation is somewhat unusually large, I cannot help thinking that some have come expecting me to refer to the sad events of the past week, but I do not intend to do so, for I could not speak of them without entering into personal matters.. My opinion is that the pulpit is not the place for personalities; and, moreover, the preacher has always something more important to speak to his people about than those things which have been recently engaging our attention. I will now only thank my numerous friends for the kind sympathy they have shown to me in my difficulties; and I beg them one and all to show true forbearance and Christian charity, such as I can safely say I feel towards all those with whom I have been brought into contact.”

After the service a large crowd remained outside the church in evident waiting for Mr. Wynn. It was composed mainly of youths and roughs, who had evidently not been to church, or who, if they had, certainly paid no attention whatever to Mr. Ommanney’s injunction to observe forbearance and Christian charity. As soon as Mr. Wynn was seen descending the steps into the street, the crowd attempted to close round him. But his friends were too quick for this movement. Forming themselves into a kind of body guard, they kept the crowd off, and Mr. Wynn walked into the Division street with his supporters around him. The crowd followed at some distance, their attitude was threatening, but the presence of a couple of policemen, and the determination of Mr. Wynn’s friends, doubtless induced them to conclude that it was best to do nothing. 

Western Daily Press, 10 April 1883

The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, referring to the case in which the Rev. G. C. Ommanney took out a summons against Mr Wynn, says: —“there is a wrong way of performing a right action, and that Mr Wynn adopted the wrong way, he himself must by this time, if he be a devout Churchman—as we believe he is—be fully convinced. The end does not, in this case, any more than in any other, justify the means. Here was a clergyman engaged in performing what is considered by Christian men and women to be the most solemn and reverent act of Christian worship, symbolising the profoundest mystery of the Christian faith, and the churchwarden, whose duty it is to see that ‘all things are done decently and in order’, interposes by violence, at this supreme moment, to suppress what he considers to be an illegality in the mode of performing it. We are not now viewing the question from a legal, but from a religious, standpoint. Is Mr Wynn able to calculate what infinite mischief he has inflicted upon religion by such action as this? The ‘scene’ in which he was such a foremost and culpable participator on Monday has been described as ‘revolting’ by the ablest of the London press; and if Mr Wynn and Mr Ommanney and their partisans needed proof of how ‘revolting’ it must be to Christian people, and how sadly damaging to Christianity, the unseemly manifestation of feeling in the police court ought to have covered them with shame. When the very elements used to celebrate the death of the Saviour of men are made to minister to the merriment and scorn of the thoughtless and the irreverent in a crowded and not a very select police court, it is more than time that religion should be divorced from ecclesiasticism, and that the scandal brought upon Christianity by usurping priests and their fighting opponents should be wiped away from the Protestant church by the destruction of that which gives it vitality for mischief—the union of the Church with the State. 

Sheffield Independent, 10 May 1883

Yesterday, in the Sheffield Town Hall, an information was laid before Mr. T. Jessop, by Mr. Binney, Mr. Ommanney’s legal adviser, and a summons was issued against Mr. Wynn, charging him “that on the 8th of April he was unlawfully guilty of indecent behaviour in a certain parish church, to wit, the Parish Church of St. Matthew’s.” The date of hearing has not yet been fixed.

Next time in Part Three: the Monition...