[Bell Historians] Re: St Barnabas, Pimlico

[David Willis]

Me
"I should have worded my question differently. As a complete ring by Charles and 
George Mears, are  they in any way remarkable or unique ?"
 

DB 
Quote "Have to say I think this is the sort of view which leads to problems."
 
 
It considerably disturbs me that you might take my question as an indicator that 
I hold over preservationist views. It was a question calculated to draw someone like
Richard Smith to produce facts and figures as it seems remarkable to me that a 
complete ring of 10 should last that long without a least one bell being recast.
 
In fact I agree with your reply and am pleased to have provided the moment for you
to write what has to be written. 
 
If worth should be the driving force behind preservation, as I think that both you and 
Chris have written, then we would not have had all this upset with Malvern I think .
Only the best is fit for the House of God.
 
David
 
 
 Rather than a presumption in favour of replacement (should it be desired), we seem all too often to actively look for reasons why something is unique or worthy of preservation - and it's getting worse. Taken to extremes this will lead to bloated listed bells lists, and being unable to see the wood for the trees - not to mention being unable to do anything in many cases because somebody at some point has decided that some bell or other (or more problematically a frame) should be preserved.
 
Bell history is in many ways an aspect of industrial archaeology, but the attitude to preservation seems to be fundamentally at odds with much else in this area. Take trains as just one example. When they have reached the end of their useful lives, most of them will be scrapped and a few will be acquired by preservation societies or museums, and some new and shiny ones more suited to modern requirements will take their place. The same is true of most other examples of mechanical engineering.
 
With bells, though, we seem to be increasingly getting to a point where many are actively looking for reasons to keep things. Yes, of course some things are worth keeping, but listing a bell on the basis that it was the last bell of the month cast by Fred Bloggs in October 1880, or whatever, is not a positive or useful step. Remember that we only have the variety now because of a presumption in the past of replacement when required (subject to finance) rather than trying to make the best of the inadequate. We should not be trying to preserve in aspic: If something old can be reused sensibly all well and good, but I see little merit in keeping (for example) a knackered frame because some conservation body says so, with the result that the bells go like the sides of houses or a new frame will be installed lower in the tower and the bells will be inaudible even a short distance away, while the old frame rots abandoned and unvisited higher in the tower.
 
Bells aren't quite such a problem, but a toneless bell can ruin a ring. If it's really worth keeping then it perhaps is appropriate to preserve it out of the ring, otherwise scrap or sell it. Needless listing will just add to the cost of projects and lead to unwanted bells of questionable historical merit clogging up churches and museums - and if it's the whole ring which is listed there is potentially a major problem in this area.
 
So, to answer your specific question, no I don't think a mid-Victorian ten by a prolific and not particularly talented founder should be listed for preservation.
 
David


                 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20091221/e8d8125f/attachment.html>