The case of the Discordant Peal – Hythe Bells. (Taken from 

‘The Folkestone Chronicle’ 20th Jun 1863)

--o0o--

HYTHE – COURT OF EXCHEQUER – Jun 17th [Sitting at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Mr Baron MARTIN & a Common Jury]

STOCKHAM v. FRIEND.

The action was brought to recover £95 – 2 – 5 for two church bells.

The defendant pleaded ‘never indebted’.

Mr Serjeant O’BRIEN and Mr YOUNGE were counsels for plaintiff; and Mr HAWKINS, Q.C. and Mr TURNER for defendant. Mr Serjeant O’Brien said the action was brought for the price of two bells, supplied July 1861 to the defendant, church beadle and chief constable, for the benefit of the parish of Hythe in Kent. Some time in 1859 it had occurred to the inhabitants of Hythe that their peal of bells – which consisted of eight cast by T. Mears I in 1802 – should be increased to ten, and the defendant, on their behalf, asked the plaintiff to give an estimate for recasting one of the old bells, and supplying two new ones. On 9th April, the plaintiff sent in an estimate to make two new bells of the kind required, and “in perfect harmony with the old peal” for 95 – 2 – 5, and the defendant sent back a letter accepting those terms.

Mr Baron Martin said that the only question was: whether the bells were in harmony with the old peal.

Mr Hawkins “Whether they were in harmony with the old triple bob-major” [laughter]

Mr Serjeant O’Brien said the bells were sent down to Hythe on 1st July 1861 and put up, and Mr FRIEND who was very anxious for the success of the job, brought from London nine College Youths to assist him in ringing them. On 6th July the bells commenced ringing at twelve o’ clock and never ceased until six in the evening, when a festival in their honour began, under the presidency of the clergyman of the parish. After dinner, some praised the bells, and others, including the Chairman, expressed dissatisfaction with them, but Mr Friend honestly and manfully stood up for them, said they performed remarkably well, that they told a nice tale, and that after a time he was satisfied that they would do credit to Hythe. The plaintiff had not received a farthing of money from the people of Hythe, although the bells were up six months before there was any refusal by the defendant to fulfil the contract, which the plaintiff contended he had substantially and honestly performed.

Mr George STOCKHAM, the plaintiff, said he was a bell founder in Old Boswell Court, W.C. and had been engaged fifteen years in hanging bells. He had been one of the ringers at St. Clements, Strand and at Westminster Abbey for twenty years and was also a member of the Society of College Youths. He went down to Hythe to hear the bells tried. They rang very well and were in good harmony. They told a very nice tale [laughter]. He could count each bell distinctly and that was the best test of their being in harmony. HE did not test the bells himself, but employed Mr G. MEARS of Whitechapel to cast them, and paid him £66 – 18/-. At the dinner, the defendant said he thought the two bells were too good for the old peal of Hythe, and that the old treble ought to be re-cast. Plaintiff afterwards received a letter from the defendant, stating that the opinions expressed against the bells were driving him out of his mind, and hoped that something might be done with them. He added that the best judges said they were in perfect tone, but that they did not harmonise with the old bells.

Plaintiff cross-examined: “I have never cast any church bells, but I have cast handbells. I did not tell the defendant that I had a foundry for casting church bells myself, not to prevent people knowing they were cast by Mr Mears. The Minister of the parish asked at dinner what was the matter with the bells, and Mr Friend said they were too good, and that the fault was with the old treble which wanted re-casting. The bells were chipped in consequence of the complaints made”. Plaintiff denied that they had been cast for any other parish.

Several witnesses, including some ‘College Youths’ were called to prove that the plaintiff’s bells were distinct and clear, and harmonised with the old peal.

Mr Hawkins then addressed the jury for the defence. He said that when the bells were first rung, they caused such a commotion among the inhabitants of the little town of Hythe that the Churchwardens, and others responsible for the bells led a most miserable existence. Hythe had always been celebrated for its peal of bells, and though a great deal of abuse had been heaped on the old treble major, he was a very respectable, remarkably useful and good bell, but the ringing of the new bells from morning ‘til night had such an effect upon the inhabitants that some of them went mad and some had not yet recovered, while others retired to the sea beach, not being able to listen nearer! [laughter]. The clergyman could not, however, desert his post, and they might readily imagine in what state he was. He took the chair at dinner, but the music of the bells was so distracting that he could not hold it long. He cried out more than once “Silence those dreadful bells” and everyone expressed the utmost dissatisfaction with them [laughter]. Grief was the predominant feeling in the minds of all the guests, and it was altogether as miserable an affair as could well be conceived. They had no appetite for dinner, and if they had, they could not digest it because of the discordant bells. Poor Mr Friend, who had looked forward to that day as the brightest in his life, had prepared a beautiful speech about the bells, but in consequence of the general disappointment, could not deliver it. The Rev. chairman got up as well as he was able [laughter] to propose Mr Friend’s health, but he chiefly condoled with him on the general disappointment [laughter]. Mr Friend, of course, expressed himself for the honour done him, and he confessed he had a speech cut-and-dried for the occasion, but that, as all had turned out so badly, he would not deliver it. He was in a most dreadful state of mind, and complained to the plaintiff, who encouraged him not to despond, as, with a little more working the bells would go easier and get accustomed to each other [laughter]. This was, however, not the case, and for several months, unfortunate Mr Friend was bullied and worried from one end of the town to the other by those who had subscribed for the bells, and who, instead of hearing the old bells which were quite delightful, especially on a summer evening, were distracted by the tones of the new peal.

Mr Friend, the defendant, said he was Superintendent of the police at Hythe, and leader of the Hythe bell ringers who were celebrated all round the country for their performances. The old bells rang in perfect harmony, and no complaint was made of their being out of tune, but no sooner had the new bells been added than the peal became discordant. Before he engaged the plaintiff to make the bells, plaintiff told him that he had, in conjunction with another person, cast two bells for St Clement’s church, which were celebrated for their music. Defendant was never satisfied with the new bells from the first, because they did not harmonise with the old bells. They had long ceased to be rung, and were taken down on Thursday last. Defendant had refused to allow the plaintiff to alter the old bells, but said he could do what he liked with the new ones.

The learned Judge, in summing up, said it appeared to him that the only question for the jury was, whether the new bells could, with a reasonable alteration of the old ones, be made in perfect harmony with the latter. If they thought that, by reasonable alteration of the old bells the defendant could have brought the new ones in harmony with them, and the defendant had refused to allow such alteration, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. On the other hand, if they did not think so, they ought to give a verdict for the defendant.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff – Damages: £95.

Mr Baron Martin refused to stay execution.