In 1862 Lord Stamford with the Quorn hounds paid a two-day visit to Thurnby in East Leicestershire, being entertained by Mr Thomas Miles at The Grange. This set in train an unforeseen chain of events.

At that time it was the custom in Thurnby, and possibly elsewhere, to ring the church bells to herald the start of a new hunting season. But the vicar, the Rev J R Redhead, gave note to churchwarden David Wait that he objected to ringing for such an occasion. He went further; he barred the door of St. Luke’s Church by putting a piece of wood across it.

Old customs die hard, however, and Leicestershire folk can be independently minded. The bellringers – churchwarden David Wait, parish clerk Edward Draper (the man who had borne the vicar’s letter of warning to Mr Wait), and parishioners Edward Seal, Robert Jarvis and William Seal overcame the difficulty of entry by asking the local constable to remove the wood.

In all innocence and acknowledging the supposed authority of the churchwardens, the officer prized off the fastening.

Soon afterwards the Rev R J Redhead arrived, to find that he in his turn was prevented from entering the Church, because the door was locked from within.

“Let me in or take the consequences”, he shouted. The answer came: “We are willing to take the consequences”.

The vicar hurried off to find the district superintendent of police, a search which took him two hours. In the meantime the bells rang merrily and the hunt gathered.

The Rev Redhead was not a man to brook opposition. He resorted to the law, and the case was tried at the County Court in the Castle.

A delightful account of the proceedings appeared in the “Leicester Journal “of the day.

The Court was said to be crowded with intent listeners, including many of the principal gentry of the neighbourhood in which the incident took place.

While defence and prosecution counsels were having an eloquent set-to, the vicar suddenly stood up and told the Court that he had come not to seek punishment but to know for certain whether he had the right to ring the bells, whether the wardens had the right to ring the bells, or whether they both had the right to ring the bells.

The defending counsel was delighted, and emphasized that the matter was one of ascertaining a right and not of passing judgement on a wrong.

Eventually the case was dismissed as beyond the competence of the Court, and the affair ended temporarily as Mr Miles of The Grange stood up and shouted his objection to being arrested as an accessory when all he had done was to organise the meeting of the hounds.

The vicar then took the matter to the Court of Arches, which is the highest ecclesiastical court for the Archbishopric of Canterbury. It dates from mediaeval times and is still in existence. The hearing was held in the Rolls Court in the City of Westminster, under Mr Justice Lushington, Doctor of Laws and Principal of the Arches Court.

The five accused were summoned “to answer to certain Articles, heads or positions touching and concerning their Soul’s health and the reformation of their manners and excesses at the promotion of the said John Roberts Redhead and more especially for having in the month of February … etc., etc.”

The bellringers admitted the facts, but claimed the right to ring the bells. The learned judge did not agree and admonished them to refrain from like behaviour in the future.

They were instructed to pay the costs of the suit, £44 3s lOd. In the 1860’s this represented a large sum of money, probably beyond what the five defendants were able or prepared to pay. They elected instead to go to prison for a month in the second division.

During this time the members of the Quorn hunt sent them game and so many other delicacies that, according to local report, never had they lived so well.

A pencilled note among the records states that at the Vestry (parish) meeting held on the 10th February 1863 in Thurnby, a weekly allowance was proposed for the families of the men concerned. Whether this was actually paid has not been ascertained, but it is easy to see where people’s sympathies lay. Indeed the vicar himself, although by repute a man who did not like to be gainsaid, may well have had some regrets. He had said in the County Court that “It was during a slight misunderstanding that I began to interfere with them (the churchwardens) as to bellringing”.

A law journal of the time clarified the case by stating that the vicar could not sue for trespass, because the legal ownership of the bells and bell-ropes was vested in the churchwardens. On the other hand, the incumbent of a parish had absolute control over the ringing of the bells, and no one had the right to ring them against his wishes. Hence the judge’s findings.

Because of manner in which the matter was resolved, details of the incident are still remembered by older families in Thurnby and district. These include three great-granddaughters of two of the bellringers concerned. Two of the descendants have carefully preserved the documents connected with this Battle of the Bells, which in its way is a vignette of village life just over a century ago.

Mrs E Ruddock – from “Leicestershire Historian” – Autumn 1970

Grateful acknowledgements to those who made the documents of the case available for reference and to the “Leicester Mercury” for the “Leicester Journal” report.

Article provided by Peter Soar