Part Three: the Monition
 |
'The Rev. Ommanney', Southampton City Art Gallery. Oil on canvas, 533 x 431 mm. The artist is Margaret
Georgiana Ommanney, George Campbell Ommanney’s second
cousin. Although it
would therefore seem probable that George Campbell Ommanney is the subject of the portrait, a comparison with the photographs on the previous two posts must give us pause, although there are certainly distinct similarities - for example in the high
bridge of the nose and the slight hint of a Hapsburg jaw. This may be Father Ommanney in his later years, some time after the photographs. Alternatively it could be Prebendary George Druce Wynn Ommanney, his uncle (and godfather), although his dates make that seem unlikely.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 13 April 1883
THE ARCHIBISHOP OF YORK AND THE VICAR OF ST. MATTHEW’S, SHEFFIELD
The Archibishop of York, in his monition to the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, vicar of St. Matthew’s, Sheffield, orders him to discontinue eight of the Ritualistic practices complained of by Mr. Walter Wynn, parish churchwarden, and to give assurance of his obedience to the order on or before the 1st May. In a letter to the churchwardens the Archbishop points out that no person has a right to interfere and put a stop to ceremonies in churches by force. Mr. Ommanney returned to Sheffield on Thursday evening, when there was a consultation with his friends prior to proceedings against Mr. Wynn in the police court to-day (Friday).
The following are the requirements of the Archbishop in detail:—
1. To use pure wine, and not wine mixed with water, in the Holy Communion.
2. To use ordinary wheaten bread in all celebrations of the Holy Communion, and not bread pressed, so as to resemble wafer-bread.
3. To so proceed in the acts of the Holy Communion that the congregation may see his acts.
4. To restrain from prostrating or bowing over the elements at the time of the celebration.
5. To refrain from making the sign of the cross over the elements at the time of the celebration.
6. To discontinue the ceremonial of elevation of the paten and the cup.
7. To permit no person not licensed by the Archbishop to officiate in any manner at the Holy Communion, whether such person be called server or by any other title.
8. That the washing and the cleansing of the vessels used in the Holy Communion shall not take place in the service, but in some place apart.
The Archbishop requires Mr. Ommanney to observe these things in virtue of his promise of canonical obedience, and to make a return to the monition, and give assurance of his obedience to the same. To-day, at the further hearing of the summons against Mr. Wynn, the stipendiary will be asked to state a case for a higher court, in connection with the summonses previously dismissed.
Leeds Times, 5th May 1883
THE RITUALISTIC AFFAIR AT SHEFFIELD.—It was expected that the Rev. Mr. Ommanney, of Sheffield, would on Sunday declare what course he intended to adopt in reference to the Archbishop’s recent monition. Nothing, however, transpired. The Archbishop of York sent a monition to Mr. Ommanney calling upon him to desist from Ritualistic practices in celebrating Holy Communion. On Monday evening and Tuesday morning Mr. Ommanney celebrated Communion in accordance with the concessions he is prepared to make. The service was attended by the parish warden, Mr. W. Wynn. The rev. gentleman adopted the eastward position throughout, but in compliance with one of the Archbishop’s requirements he turned partly round that the congregation might see him break the bread and take the cup. He several times made the sign of the cross, prostrated his body over the elements, and at the conclusion of the service he ceremonially washed the cup and drank the contents. Mr. Wynn has written to the Archbishop that Mr. Ommanney’s conduct from beginning to end was an evasion of the monition.
On 10th May 1883 Mr Longden wrote, in a letter to The Guardian:—
Mr. Ommanney found Mercer’s “Hymnal” in use, and after a few months announced that he should use “Hymns Ancient and Modern” as a supplement to Mercer’s “Hymnal” at the ordinary Sunday services. The reception that this meets with is that those who consider themselves aggrieved by any change in the services sit during the singing of a hymn from “Hymns Ancient and Modern”, though, if it is given out as being in Mercer’s “Hymnal,” too, they stand like the rest of the congregation. If it should happen that the hymn is in both hymnals, and it is not so given out, but only as in “Hymns Ancient and Modern”, these protestors sit, though they may find it in Mercer's "Hymnal" if they looked for it...
Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 8 May 1883
Rockingham Street, Sheffield, May 5, 1883.
My Lord Archbishop,—I see by this morning's papers your Grace has received a letter on the affairs of St Matthew's, signed by three gentlemen, two of whom are the Vicar's sidesmen.
These gentlemen wish your Grace to believe, because I stated in my letter of the 1st May the cup was perfectly dry when shown to me, that Mr. Ommanney had complied with the first clause in the monition:—'That in future you use pure wine, and not wine mixed with water, in the Holy Communion.'
Mr Ommanney has himself told your Grace in his letter of the 30th April that he will not discontinue the use of the mixed chalice.
The showing of the dry cup to me could only have been intended to deceive me, and I think your Grace will admit it was a tricky act, unworthy of a minister of religion and a gentleman.—I remain, yours faithfully, WALTER WYNN.
Sheffield Independent, 17 May 1883
Here is a pretty story which has reached me from a clerical source. Mr. Ommanney one day went to call upon Mr. Wynn. The rev. gentleman was ushered into a room, where he found not only Mr. Wynn, but the Rev. Dr. Potter and the Rev. R. Douglas. Tableau! What happened my informant doesn't say. I know the services of the police were not required.
Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 19 May 1883
THE REV. G. C. OMMANNEY AND THE ARCHBISHOP
The following correspondence has been handed to us for publication: —
My dear Ommanney,—I enclose you a letter, from which you will see that there is an impression abroad that you had ‘promised the Archbishop to give up certain things, and had not fulfilled your promise.’ I have heard the same thing about you from one or two other quarters. I am not up in all the ins and outs of your recent troubles, but I should be glad if you could send me an explanation, which I could show to —
Believe me, my dear Ommanney, yours, &c, C. N. GRAY
Helmsley, May 17, 1883
St Matthew’s Vicarage, Sheffield, May 18, 1883
My dear Gray. —The following extract from one of my letters to the Archbishop of York will show that the impression of which you write is without foundation. The letter is dated April 23, 1883:—
'I must confess that I felt great surprise and grief on reading the next portion of your Grace’s letter. On March 5 I wrote to your Grace as follows. (The whole letter has already been made public).
“A little wine and water is poured into the chalice after the service is finished to assist me in obeying the directions of the Prayer Book as to the consumption of what remains of the Sacrament. The cup is then simply wiped with a small linen cloth. I will give up the latter practice if your Grace wishes me to do so.”
Your Grace having received this letter knew what my practice was, and knew that I had made no promise to give up my accustomed manner of consuming what remains of the Blessed Sacrament, but only to discontinue wiping the chalice, and that only if your Grace should wish me to do so. Yet I see that in a letter to the churchwardens, as well as in the letter of April 17, your Grace describes my use as ‘a washing of the chalice and drinking of the washing water,’ and accuses me of having broken a promise which I had never made, as your Grace could have seen by referring to my letter quoted above. I will not allow myself to make any comment on this part of the letter. It has enabled the editor of a local newspaper, who is always offensive when writing about me, to become openly libellous, and to say that I have broken my word given as a Christian and a gentleman.'
The whole letter, from which this is an extract, was actually sent to the Sheffield newspapers and part of it to the Pall Mall Gazette, but on the day I sent it I received a short note from the Archbishop, marked private, which made it impossible for me to publish it, consistently with what I conceived to be my duty to his Grace. As, however, I know that the same impression that you mention as to my conduct exists in the minds of many, I shall send your letter and mine to the newspapers.
Believe me to be, Yours very sincerely, G. C. Ommanney.
Hartlepool Mail, 29 May 1883
The Rev. G. C. Ommanney, the vicar of St. Matthew’s, Sheffield, has received two memorials from clergy belonging to the diocese of York. The first one, which thanks the vicar for his firmness on behalf of important Church principles, is signed by 115 clergy, 91 of whom are beneficed. The second communication to Mr Ommanney is signed by 106 clergy, and also thanks him for “upholding manfully the reverent consumption of all that remains of the Blessed Sacrament, the right to use the eastward position at the altar, and generally the reverent mode of celebrating the Holy Eucharist which you have adopted.”
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser, 30 May 1883
Addressing his congregation at St. Matthew's, Sheffield, on Sunday evening, the Rev. G. C. Ommanney contended that the Church's worship should be as beautiful as possible, and said this was one of the chief reasons of success which had attended what was called the ritualistic movement in some of the worst parts of our great towns and cities. He said they were not going to obey an Act of Parliament which was passed by a body some of whom might be infidels or Jews, and who were not qualified to make laws for the followers of Jesus Christ. They were not going to obey a court set over the Church by Parliament, nor were they bound to obey the individual opinion of any person, however high might be his position in the world or the Church. What they were to do was to obey the voice of the Church as given to them in the Prayer Book. It was true they promised obedience to their bishops, but in the event of a bishop ordering something which was contrary to the Prayer Book it was their duty to obey it before the bishop. The oath of obedience to the bishop was an oath of canonical obedience, but it was only a promise to obey him in all things that were lawful and honest.
Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 30 May 1883
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SHEFFIELD DAILY TELEGRAPH
‘They shall privily bring in damnable heresies’.
Sir – in Sheffield on Monday I read in your excellent paper an account of a sermon by Mr. Griffin, curate of St. Matthew’s, and an instruction by the vicar, Mr. Ommanney. The first seems to have been so personal and odious in style as to have called forth a remonstrance from Mr. Wynn, pronounced sotto voce. Now, in this he is clearly in violation not only of decency and order, but of a canon of the Church of England, and should at once be reported to the Archbishop.
As to Mr. Ommanney, he is reported to have said that he owed an allegiance to the Prayer Book superior to that due to the Archbishop. This is rank rebellion. Sir, the Preface to the Prayer Book constitutes the Archbishop the interpreter of the Prayer Book, and therefore to his dictum he must bow. So, again, whatever nonsense they talk about the lay of the Church Catholic is settled thus, that the extent to which our Church felt bound by that idea is settled by her rubrics, which is therefore limited, and anything outside them is illegal. —Yours truly, VIATOR.
York Herald, 23 June 1883
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND ST. MATTHEW'S, SHEFFIELD
Mr Walter Wynn, people's warden at St. Matthew's Church, Sheffield, who has for some time past protested against the ritualistic practices of the vicar (the Rev. G. C. Ommanney), and who recently started “a Protestant mission” in the parish, has forwarded the following communication to the Archbishop of York in reference to recent saying and doings at the church:—
June 18th, 1883
Mr Lord Archbishop,—The Rev. G. C. Ommanney, in the course of his sermon (?) last night, made use of the following words:—”There is a choice between two religions—between the Catholic religion of the Church of England and the Protestant religion begun only 300 years ago. The choice is between a religion of 1,800 years standing and a new religion of 300 years,; between the religion of Jesus Christ—for he was the founder and head of the Catholic Church—and a religion of men, founded by men whose characters would hardly bear investigation. The choice is between a religion which formed the martyrs and the saints of old and a religion which appeared to produce no change in the life of those profession it.”
I submit the above to your Grace without comment. Some time ago Mr. Ommanney was served with a “monition,” and he was given until the 1st May to make up his mind in regard to certain illegal acts which he was guilty of. The 1st May has passed away, but the acts complained of still remain. Your Grace has no doubt read or heard of a certain King of France, who
——with 30,000 men,
Marched up the hill,
And then—marched down again.
This marching up the hill no doubt created a most profound impression at the time; so did your monition—almost as great as that caused by your inaction since. Better by far not to have issued that monition, unless you had determined to carry out the intention of it at all costs. I reported to your Grace certain offensive words used by the Rev. J. C. Griffin a few Sundays ago, and asked you to make him apologise without reserve, and as publicly as he uttered them, or else to rid us of his presence. He is still officiating, and, so far from apologising, he is becoming bolder and more insolent owing to your silence. Knowing that this gentleman—pardon the word—is not licensed, we shall have to deal very summarily with him unless our grievance is redressed.—I remain, yours faithfully, WALTER WYNN.
------------------
The following correspondence has passed between the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, the vicar of St. Matthew's, Sheffield, and Mrs. Rose, the superintendent of St. Matthew's Sunday School—
Dear Mrs Rose,—I am told by the children in Annie Royle's class that she has been inviting them to attend the Protestant Sunday Schools in Rockingham-lane, and I therefore, now that she has done this, cannot allow her to teach again in the Church School. I cannot express too strongly my surprise and grief that anyone who professes to be a religious person should be guilty of such deceitful and treacherous conduct. I have allowed her to retain a position in my schools, though I know she holds opinions contrary to those taught in the Prayer Book. I have trusted to her honour not to teach anything which might be contrary to my wishes, and not in any way to use her position to hinder my work. I find now she is unworthy of the confidence I placed in her. I am told that Miss Newton has been doing the same thing. I am most unwilling to believe that she would behave in such a way. Kindly see that Miss Royle does not teach any more.—Believe me, yours very sincerely, G. C. Ommanney.
To this Mrs. Rose replies:—
30, Norfolk-street, June 11, 1883.
The Rev. G. C. Ommanney. Sir—I do not know what you may or may not have been told by the children respecting Annie Royle. I should not be surprised at anything some of them might say, since they have had the doctrines of venial and mortal sins, confession to and absolution by the priest thrust into their little heads they are perhaps not quite so truthful as they formerly were. Whether Miss Royle has or has not been asking the children to go to St. Matthew's Protestant School is best known to herself; but of all men you ought to be the last in the world to charge anyone with being “grossly deceitful and treacherous.” No one makes a greater show or profession of religion than yourself, and there is not, I should think, a more grossly deceitful or treacherous man within the pale of the Church. While belonging to the Reformed Protestant Church of England, while eating the bread of that Church, while promising obedience to the Prayer Book and your Bishops, you and your colleague (the saintly Griffin, who from the pulpit stated that some of us were prompted by the devil when referring to the Protestant mission work) are plotting and scheming to introduce Pagan and Romish customs and ceremonies and priest-craft into it. A pretty pair of innocents you are! You stand need to talk of deceit and treachery while you practice your impious incantations. You ask me to see that Miss Royle does not teach again in your school. Please do your dirty work yourself. You are well able. It is not long since you dismissed her sister, and pretended to assign some reason; but you knew at the time it was false. Her sin was she was a Protestant and you found it impossible to pervert her to Popery. Shortly afterwards you dismissed Mr. Turton from his class without any reason or justification being given, and now you are working at Miss Royal and Miss Newton. They are the only two left besides myself, and, I suppose, when you have got rid of them you purpose to turn your attention to me. I will relieve you of the trouble by withdrawing myself from any further connection with the school as long as your dark shadow is cast over it. I hope the day is not far distant when the Bishops will be aroused from their sleep, and be made to learn that they have duties, to neglect which would be perilous to their office, and when you and all such like will meet with their rich deserts.—I remain, yours, &c, R. A. ROSE, Superintendent of St. Matthew's, formerly Protestant, but now Papist, Sunday School.
Sheffield Independent, 21 June 1883
The Rev. G. C. Ommanney has left Sheffield for a month, or five weeks, much of which, I understand, he intends spending in the Black Forest. Mr. Wynn will probably make arrangements to have his holiday at the same time, unless he considers that the gentleman whom Mrs. Rose sarcastically styles the “saintly Griffin” requires quite as much looking after as Mr. Ommanney himself. Perhaps that may be Mr. Wynn's opinion.
Western Daily Press, 25 June 1883
Mr Wynn... has lately written to the Archbishop of York complaining that Mr Ommanney has disregarded his Grace's monition to discontinue certain practices, and complaining also of the Archbishop's subsequent inaction. To this letter his Grace has sent the following reply:—
Sir,—The letters which you have seen good to address to me show that you misapprehend your position as a churchwarden. It appears that you have opened, or favoured the opening, of a Dissenting chapel in the parish of St. Matthew. That upon this Mr Griffin preached recommending the people not to resort to it; and in this sermon you consider that he made a personal attack upon yourself. You thereupon called out in the church the words, 'Don't be personal'—words which certainly could not do any good, and which constituted an illegal act. You then make a complaint against the clergyman for his attack upon you. But I need not say that your position as a complainant is much affected by your own act of brawling. You allege that the offensive practices against which the monition was directed have not been discontinued. Mr Ommanney asserts that, except as to two of them, they have been discontinued. Two of the sidesmen wrote in detail to say what has been discontinued; but in one particular, at least, their statement was clearly wide of the mark. You yourself have alleged that a trick was played upon you in order to persuade you that the mixed chalice was not in use. I really find it impossible to ascertain from the conflicting testimonies what is going on amongst you.
You assume, in terms which you consider witty, but which appear to be only impertinent, that since May I have done nothing with respect to the matter. The assumption is wholly untrue. I have not brought the matter to a satisfactory termination because of the efforts that have been made to prevent me from doing so; but it has, in fact, engaged my attention, and a good many letters have passed.
In my judgment your position would be much strengthened if you carefully confined yourself to those limits which the law assigns to your office. When you say that I have been in a state of 'inaction' since May 1, you should, at least, have remembered that I prevented a fresh act of brawling on your part when I directed you, a few days ago, not to attempt to prevent Mr Griffin on your own authority from officiating in the church.
I am, yours faithfully, W. ESOR.
York Herald, 30 June 1883
The following is the reply of Mr. Walter Wynn, the people's warden at St Matthew's, Sheffield, to the letter of the Archbishop of York, published on Saturday—
Rockingham Street, Sheffield, 22nd June 1883.
My Lord Archbishop,—I was led to believe by your speech the other night at the Albert Hall, in answer to an address from the working men of this town, that you liked 'plain speaking'—your Grace said so—and I really never listened to so much plain speaking before. It was piled on so thick that you had to confess you scarcely knew yourself. It appears, however, your liking for plain speaking is only a partial one. Under certain circumstances you consider it “manly,” while in other cases it is “impertinent.” Your grace is good enough to call our St. Matthew's Protestant Mission Room a “dissenting chapel.” We will not cavil about the name—call it a dissenting chapel or a barn, or anything else—but we, the people who meet there to worship, claim to be of the Church, and of that section of the Church which we know as the National Protestant Church of England. And further, we have been driven from communion at our Parish Church by your own act - the licensing of a man to the incumbency who, if he is not, ought to be a Romish priest. There is no denying it, you have got St. Matthew's into a fix, and though you may “Rochester” me, though you may try to justify your inaction by the discovery that the statements of the vicar's officers and the parish officers are very conflicting, though you may try to shirk the responsibility for a time on the plea that you find it impossible from these conflicting testimonies to ascertain what is going on among us, the fact still remains, and sooner or later you must face it. Is your Grace really desirous of knowing what is going on among us? Surely nothing could possibly be easier. You know what our Lord did when the cry rose up from Sodom:—”He came down Himself to see if what He had heard was true”. The disciple is not above his Master. Your Grace says—”I have not brought the matter to a satisfactory termination, because of the efforts that have been made to prevent me from doing so.” There is more in this than what appears on the surface, but I will leave it. Much as I respect and reverence the high office which your Grace fills, and much as I regret the necessity for writing to you in such outspoken language—language which, had I lived 300 years ago, might have cost me my head—still, so long as I occupy my present position, you will find I shall do my duty, event at the risk of offending you.—I remain, yours obediently, WALTER WYNN.
On Tuesday the Rev. Canon Blakeney, vicar of Sheffield, received a document from the Archbishop of York, who is at present in London. The communication is addressed to the Rev. Canon Blakeney; the Rev. T. Wilkins, vicar of St. Michael's and All Angels'; the Rev. J. Draper, vicar of All Saints', the Rev. F. W. Goodwyn, vicar of Sharrew; and all local clergymen. After the formal opening the document proceeds as follows:—"Whereas great excitement does prevail on the subject of the changes in the public worship and as to certain sermons preached in the Church of St. Matthew, and whereas certain difficulties have arisen in ascertaining the facts out of which such excitement has arisen; now, I, as visitor of the said church, do hereby request and empower you to act on my behalf in inquiring into and reporting as to the differences that exists between the Rev. Geo. Campbell Ommanney and the parishioners' churchwarden, as to the mode in which worship is conducted in the said church, as to the sermons which have been complained of, and as to all other matters and things relating to the said condition of the said parish; and I require all persons who are connected with the said parish, whether officially or in virtue of residence as parishioners, to give you all help and information in reference to the said parish, and I request you to report to me as soon as possible upon the subject.—W. ESOR.
The Commissions appointed by his Grace will hold the inquiry as soon as can possibly be arranged. It will be of a private character, and at its close a report will be drawn up and forwarded to the Archbishop, and if there is sufficient grounds to justify him in taking an extreme course he will inhibit the Rev. G. C. Ommanney. Mr. Ommanney is at present on the Continent, but it is not proposed to call him back before the inquiry is held.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 14 August 1883
ST MATTHEW'S SHEFFIELD
The Commission appointed by the Archbishop to York to inquire into the complaints made by Mr. Walter Wynn, parishioners' warden, against the Rev. G. C. Ommanney, vicar of St. Matthew's, Sheffield, for alleged Ritualistic practices and to ascertain the cause of the dissension in that parish, began its sittings at Sheffield, on Monday. The Commission consists of the Rev. Canon Blakeney, D.D., vicar of Sheffield and rural dean; the Rev. J.B. Draper, All Saints', Brightside; the Rev. Thomas Wilkins, St. Michael's and All Angels', Neepsend; and the Rev. F. W. Goodwin, St. Andrew's, Sharrow. Canon Blakeney presided. Mr W. B. Esam, solicitor, Sheffield, attended as Assessor to the Commission. Mr. Wynn was first called upon to state his charges, which he did at length, and was afterwards interrogated by Mr. Ommanney upon the points raised. Mr. Ommanney then made a statement in defence, which was not concluded when the Commission adjourned. The proceedings, which were open to the press, lasted from eleven to half-past four o'clock.
Sheffield Independent, 23 August 1883
The Commission appointed by the Archbishop of York to inquire into the differences between Mr. Ommanney and Mr. Wynn, have but to make their report to complete their labours. This, though, will probably be the most difficult part of their task. Whatever may be the nature of their report, or what the Archbishop may do when he has received it, the holding of the commission has had a beneficial effect. Peace has reigned supreme at St Matthew's. There may be, and probably are, latent volcanoes ready to burst at the slightest provocation; but the commission has kept them still. For this, therefore, let us be thankful. We manage these things at present better than they do at Liverpool. There they have a ritualist whom the Bishop has inhibited. The inhibition has led to several disgraceful scenes in which "pure religion and undefiled" has been conspicuous by its absence. The breaking of locks, the pelting of a clergyman with mud, the gathering of excited crowds - these are some of the results of inhibition at Liverpool. From all this and much more the Archbishop's commission has saved us. It may but have put off the evil day, but that's something.
Sheffield Independent, 27th September 1883
It must certainly be admitted that the Rev. G. C. Ommanney has “scored” from the week’s festival which he has been having at St. Matthew’s in commemoration of the Saint to whom the church is dedicated…There was a decided tone of jubilation running through the whole of the speeches. Mr. Wynn was not mentioned by name, but it was clear that Mr. Ommanney and his friends felt they owed him a debt of gratitude, which they could not repay. It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event, and probably if Mr. Wynn had to deal with Mr. Ommanney over again, he would pursue a course other than that which he has adopted. Mr Ommanney is winning all along the line, and a rumour prevails in quarters which are usually well informed that the report of the Rev. Canon Blakeney and his brother commissioners will not be of a character which need cause him much uneasiness.
Sheffield Independent, 15th November 1883
Martin Luther got it “hot” on Sunday night at St. Matthew’s Church. Mr. Ommanney was the preacher. There were, fortunately, no reporters amongst the congregation, and newspaper readers have consequently been saved the columns of correspondence which the sermon would have been certain to bring into existence. By the way, there was quite a scene at St. Matthew’s on Sunday evening. It was “all along o’them boys”—the choristers, I mean. One of them had hooted Mr. Wynn outside the church after the service in the morning. This, of course, was very naughty, and Mr. Wynn asked another of the boys to tell him the name of this arch offender. The lad, however, wouldn’t split, and he was thereupon told by Mr. Wynn that he should not allow him to enter the church in the evening.
When the lad got there at night, Mr. Wynn was waiting for him at the door, and barred his entrance. There followed what reporters are fond of calling a “scene”. Some persons, who are unfriendly to Mr. Wynn, took the boy’s part and endeavoured to bundle him through the door, and whilst the noise and hubbub was at its height Mr. Ommanney made his appearance and took part in the scuffle. The noise of the struggle could be plainly heard inside the church, and the congregation rose en masse to endeavour to discover what it was all about. Some of them left their pews and went to the doorway. One who was there says the excitement was intense. I should rather think it was. ‘Tisn’t often that the spectacle of a struggle in a church doorway can be seen, especially when a clergyman and a churchwarden are amongst the parties thereto. The boy was ultimately pushed and dragged into the vestry, where the choristers don their cassocks and gowns. But there was the getting him up to the chancel, and up to the chancel Mr. Wynn declared he shouldn’t go until he had apologised. No apology was forthcoming. Mr. Wynn then stationed two or three persons to prevent the boy entering the church with the procession of the choir and clergy; but this led to a further scene, and he ultimately withdrew. Into the church, therefore, did this naughty little boy walk; but for fear that he might be again the subject of Mr. Wynn’s attentions, it was considered advisable that he should not walk with the other boys. He was, instead, sandwiched between two mighty men, members of the choir, who acted as a sort of bodyguard.
No wonder, after all this, that Mr. Ommaney pitched into poor old Luther, and smote him hip and thigh. It has been intimated to me that the rev. gentleman was what is called “taking it out of Mr. Wynn” at the same time. Perish so base an insinuation. The only satisfactory thing in the whole of this sorry piece of business is that the boy—not the one over whom there was the scuffle and the struggle, but the boy that hooted Mr. Wynn—subsequently apologised for his conduct. Who would be a churchwarden?
And with that, the affair was essentially at its end. A small selection of the more interesting late ripples are recorded in the next post, ‘the hereafter.’
No comments:
Post a Comment