[Bell Historians] Re: Kettering (again)

[David Bryant]

> According to the PDGCBR Guild Inventory, Gretton has a complete five
> cast by T. Eayre II in 1761 tenor 37 3/8 inches 8 2 24 in G#

Thanks. Sounds as if the 5th (of 8) at Kettering needed replacing, and Eayre
was at the time replacing the ring at Gretton and realised that one of the
old bells (presumably it was the tenor) would be suitable for Kettering.

> I have spoken to our Diocesan Bell Advisor who was not aware that the
> ninth of the old twelve at Kettering was a listed bell, (if it was).

I don't know - I expect GAD can tell us.

> As a 'rider' to this correspondence, is there not a responsibility
> with the recipient of such an old bell to ensure that it is not
> broken up unless the case for doing so is absolutely clear from all
> interested parties, including the Diocesan Chancellor? I think that
> Diocesan advisors, who like all of us, can make mistakes, should not
> be the sole arbitrators in such matters.

The Code of Practice, no doubt intentionally, allows room for manouvre.
However, I think most people would agree that scrapping an undamaged bell of
1630 goes against the spirit in which it was written. For bells cast before
1700 and unlisted, it says that they should only be recast if repair isn't
possible. As I understand it, the bell was undamaged and therefore shouldn't
have been scrapped. It only weighed 8½ cwt - the scrap value would have been
less than a thousand pounds, so surely some use could have been found for
it, either at Kettering or elsewhere. If that meant storing it for a while,
so be it. Its destruction is compounded by the fact that the inscription was
not reproduced on its successor.

I am not trying to apportion blame here, but the responsibility for the
destruction of the bell clearly lies with the diocese, and it
should not have been allowed. I think the reason why it was authorised needs
to be looked at in an attempt to stop any similar cases in the future.

David