[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

David Bryant davidbryant at 6G63T4Ut31bbFytvzeMD9_zOhb1skbG77UL-sN5zfHf6oyrQjAOlHag1fvbCNQlaO5IkZc_HDhCWn1Byk0wJEbss.yahoo.invalid
Thu Mar 12 19:51:09 GMT 2009

"It's interesting to see how the argument is shifting. I've still seen no 
justification given as to why on earth EH want to keep the old frame in the 
first place."

Indeed. Some have said that the church didn't give sufficient reason why 
they wanted to get rid of it, but why should the church have to? Surely we 
haven't reached the stage where there is an automatic preference for 
preserving absolutely everything regardless? As I see it, the argument 
should be the other way round. If someone or an organization (be it EH or 
whoever) wants to preserve something then they should be the ones who need 
to provide the justification - and I don't think EH have provided sufficient 
justification here. If the frame was very rare it would be understandable - 
but it isn't. Perhaps even if it was a particularly good example of its 
type - but again it isn't.

" It is even stated by David Bryant in a posting yesterday that EH 
themselves own a church with a tower containing one of these very frames. "

Temple Church, Bristol. I believe there is also an empty one in the CCT's 
Holy Trinity, Blackburn.

If examples of this type of frame are to be preserved, surely the attention 
should be on the two empty ones as they aren't causing anyone any problems, 
or on particularly good examples which don't adversely affect the go of the 
bells. I would tentatively suggest the modified 10-bell frame at 
Peterborough Cathedral, which also contains some H castings. It has been 
somewhat altered (tenor pit removed to make space for the trebles of 12), 
but it's in good condition, shows the beginning of the transition to H 
castings, and, so far as I recall, the bells go well.



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list