THE ring of bells in St Mary Magdalene’s, Richmond, which has been within the church since 1760, is to be remodelled and rehung, after the Consistory Court of the diocese of Southwark granted a college.
The body of the Grade II* listed church dates from the 18th century. The tower, nonetheless, is from the stays of a late-14th-century medieval constructing.
A hoop of six bells was solid for the church in about 1680 by James Bartlett, and was increased to eight bells by Robert Catlin in 1740. One of the bells proved unsatisfactory and was replaced by a recent tenor bell, by Lester & Pack, in 1760.
The current ring consists of the eight bells, the heaviest (the tenor) being greater than 18 cwt, and the lightest (the treble), greater than 4 cwt. It is, due to this fact, intrinsically a heavy ring, and is termed by bell-ringers as “difficult”. Because of the scale of the tower, the wheels are smaller than would ideally be the case, and the bells feel heavy to ring.
The sound of the bells can also be not good, particularly the tone of the tenor. The obvious treatment to rectify the issue in ringing the bells and improving their sound could be to put in a completely recent ring. But that proved impractical, and attracted objections from others, including Historic England.
The bell-ringers, supported by the PCC, proposed in its place that the tenor be melted down and the metal used towards the casting of 5 recent bells. Four of the old bells could be displayed elsewhere throughout the church, and within the clock room of the tower. The bells would then be easier to ring and be more tuneful.
The two churchwardens and the tower captain applied for a college for the work. The bell-ringers explained that there was a protracted history of the training of latest bell-ringers being a frustrating experience because recent recruits gave up after feeling that they weren’t getting anywhere. That, in turn, made experienced bell-ringers reluctant to start out teaching recent recruits.
The Diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Philip Petchey, said that “if ringing were indeed to die out, this could be very sad for the art and practice of bell-ringing, however it would also mean that the bells would now not summon the people of Richmond to worship.”
In accordance with the rules set out by the Court of Arches, the Consistory Court needed to think about whether the bell-ringers’ proposals, if carried out, would lead to harm to the church as a constructing of special architectural or historic interest.
The Chancellor decided that it might cause such harm. But, he said, the harm was “not of such an order of magnitude as to make it unlikely that it could possibly be outweighed by public profit”.
The justification for carrying out the proposals was “clear and convincing”, the Chancellor said, each for “the development to the sound of the ring and within the facilitation and encouragement of bell-ringing on this tower”.
If the bells fell silent since the old historic ring was being preserved, that may be of limited value, because no person would hear the preserved bells, the Chancellor said. “Moreover, the mission of the church could be impaired because the bells now not called people to worship.”
The faculty was granted, and the Chancellor hoped that the bell-ringers would consider the tradition that, when a bell was recast, its inscription was replicated on the brand new bell that was solid from it.
The Chancellor also attached a condition that a visible and aural record be product of the present bells, and appropriately stored with parish records, and offered to the local history library.
It was often the case that a final peal was rung on a hoop of bells that were as a result of be recast. If that happened, the Chancellor said, “it might be appropriate for such a peal to be recorded.”
