The 1933 libel action
brought by When great men fall out, the implications can far reaching. For over half a century, Cecil Walker Bell was a pillar of the community in Bourne, a successful solicitor, the district coroner, lay reader and churchwarden, and so there was great consternation in the town when, in 1933, he was sued for libel by the vicar, Canon John Grinter. The cause of their disagreement had
occurred three years before when Major Bell, as he liked to be known,
wrote two letters, one to the vicar and the other to the Bishop of
Lincoln, claiming that £100 [£6,000 at today's value] given to the vicar by a parishioner for the
church’s repair fund had in fact been kept for his own use. Canon
Grinter put the matter in the hands of his solicitors and even though
Major Bell had offered to make amends by publishing an apology in the
newspapers, he claimed damages by filing a suit for libel which came up
before Mr Justice Finlay at Lincolnshire Assizes on Wednesday 14th June
1933, and the hearing before a jury lasted for three days. Canon Grinter, believing that his
honour was at stake, employed one of the leading lawyers of the day, Mr
Norman Birkett, a King’s Counsel, while Major Bell was similarly
represented by Mr H H Joy, KC. Mr Birkett told the judge: “It is
regrettable that this action should be brought but it is right to say that
for the Vicar of Bourne, this is a matter of life and death. He comes to
this court and seeks that vindication of his character which alone can
make life worth living for him.” He then outlined the events that had
lead to the libel action. On 6th December 1930, Major Bell
wrote to Canon Grinter reminding him that the previous March, he had
received £100 towards the repair of the church roof but was now claiming
that the money was a personal and private gift and added: “If you care
to produce any proof that the gift was a personal one, to me in the
presence of the churchwardens, I am willing to report to the church
council that you have done so. Otherwise, I propose to send copies of the
council minutes to the Bishop of Lincoln and the Archdeacon and to ask
them to inquire into the matter.” Major Bell wrote to the bishop the
same day saying that the vicar plainly stated that he had £100 given
towards the repair of the chancel roof and had urged others to subscribe.
The vicar had been asked to pay the £100 into a special bank account that
had been opened for this purpose. His reply at a meeting of the church
council was not distinct but, on being reminded of the loss of interest on
the money, he did say that he would give the interest. The matter was
mentioned several times afterwards but the vicar had not subscribed any
sum to the restoration fund or to any other church need. The bishop subsequently replied to
Major Bell saying: “You will appreciate that if your letter means
anything, it suggests that the Vicar of Bourne has made an improper or
unjustifiable use of money entrusted to his care. Your evidence seems to
be slender. If there has been such misuse, I presume that somebody has
been defrauded. Will you kindly inform me who is the person who has been
defrauded?” Mr Birkett said that Major Bell was unable to supply this information. He then read a later letter from the
bishop to Major Bell stating that the matter had been explained to him by
Canon Grinter and it would seem that the £100 had been given to him for
his own personal use to do whatever he liked with. “I am bound to tell
you”, wrote the bishop, “that in your letter to me you have brought
very grave charges against the Vicar of Bourne on quite insufficient
grounds. I observe also that you have not answered the question I put to
you in a previous letter as to who has been defrauded. As a decent
Christian man, it is about time you made peace.” The bishop said in a further letter
to Major Bell: “Whether you really charged Canon Grinter with
misappropriation of money or not, you have certainly made statements which
seemed to carry with them such an implication.
I therefore advise the unreserved withdrawal of any imputation
affecting his honour.” Mr Birkett added: “It might be
regrettable that a vicar and a people’s warden should be in this
position but Canon Grinter said this thing had been proclaimed from the
housetops and had been a topic of controversy for years. He welcomes, and
indeed courts, investigation of any matters that Major Bell cares to bring
forward. He merely seeks to vindicate himself.” Mr Birkett said that despite the
bishop’s assessment that he had made the gravest mistake, Major Bell was
not man enough to admit it and the situation continued until 1931 when the
vicar was compelled to issue a writ threatening proceedings and the result
was that a public apology was finally offered. “At this moment”, he
added, “despite everything, Canon Grinter bears not the smallest trace
of animosity to Major Bell at all. He is a peace loving man. This action
was not brought out of vindictiveness. You, members of the jury, men and
women of the world, will be saying sarcastically to yourselves: ‘How
these Christians love one another.’ There is a much more important
reason than vindictiveness why this action is before you. The vicar of a
church feels that his honour has got to be saved. His reputation, his
character, are the only things that make him an efficient servant of the
church and unless his honour and character are left quite clear, there is
nothing in the world – money, position, anything – that is of the
smallest value.” The libel action concerned the
letters written by Major Bell but when Canon Grinter went into the witness
box, it soon became clear that there had been differences between the two
men for some time before that. On 27th July 1928, Major Bell had submitted
his account for legal costs to the church council in respect of his work
as a solicitor in connection with a lawsuit that had been settled out of
court, strongly against his advice. The vicar had considered the bill too
high and Major Bell said that he was prepared to negotiate a reduction and
absented himself from meetings when this was discussed, but it was
eventually agreed that the bill be paid in full. Canon Grinter strongly
objected to the amount of the bill and was disappointed that it should
have been submitted at all. “I was told that I should have to do without
a curate to try to pay this bill”, he said. “I was to do the work of
the parish single handed and three mission churches had to be closed. I
therefore decided to withhold the £100 because I thought it would go
directly or indirectly into Major Bell’s pocket.” Nevertheless, Canon Grinter told the
judge that he had no animosity towards Major Bell and for the first two or
three years after going to Bourne [in 1919], he was a great help to him
but a change came three or four years before, culminating in the present
situation. In 1929, the parochial church council met and among the matters
under discussion was the repairing of the chancel roof in the church. It
was suggested that £1,000 would be required and Canon Grinter said that
he knew where he could lay his hands upon £100 but that the donor’s
name must remain anonymous. He did not report that he had £100 that had
been given towards the repairs. He had rendered kindness to an old lady
and the promise was made by relatives in thankfulness for what he did on
her behalf. The vicar said that as a result of
the trouble that had since arisen, his health was desperate and his mind
had been practically a blank since Christmas. Two witnesses were called to support
the vicar's testimony. Mrs Olive Mary Elsom told the court that her
sister was the donor of the gift of £100 to the vicar and that she was
present when the money was handed over. It was paid in notes and was given
to Canon Grinter in return for his great kindness to her aunt, Mrs
Barnard. There was no specification as to which purpose the money should
be devoted. John Thomas Holmes, a retired
veterinary surgeon and vicar’s warden, said that he was present at the
church council meeting when Canon Grinter said he was not going to give
the £100 to the repair fund. “It was suggested that he procure a letter
to show to the council supporting the gift but I advised him not to
proceed with this and that his word ought to be good enough. There was a
considerable discussion and a great deal of baiting with questions and
comments and it was rather pitiable to see so much strife and
dissatisfaction.” Mr Joy, appearing for Major Bell,
referred to the beginning of the dispute in 1929 when repairs to the
chancel roof were being discussed. He went on: “The vicar was in the
happy position of being able to announce a tremendous start to the repair
fund as he had the offer of £100. We all know what it is to have to begin
collecting for things of that kind and what a glorious start an offer of
that sort by someone in a big position is. Somebody enabled the vicar to
have £100. That is what happened and there is no question about it. I
suppose numbers of people were asked to subscribe towards the fund. As
time goes on, not a solitary syllable is said as to withdrawal until June
1930 when, for the first time, comes the statement from the vicar,
accompanied by no explanation whatsoever, that he had decided not to give
the £100 towards the chancel fund. It was a personal gift and he would
use it for other purposes. That created consternation in the camp of the
church council and I have no doubt that very considerable dissatisfaction
was expressed at the meeting. The vicar agreed to produce a letter showing
the circumstances but Mr Holmes suggested that he should not do so and the
vicar changed his mind. Can you have the slightest doubt that people were
wondering what on earth had happened to the money? The bishop had written
to the vicar that if he wanted to make things look suspicious and
mysterious about money matters then he should be secretive but if he
wanted to clear up the whole thing, then lay your cards on the table which
the vicar failed to do.” Mr Joy referred to the apology
suggested by Major Bell which stated: “I am most anxious to put matters
right, not merely for the sake of peace and the good of the church, but to
do what is right towards yourself.” Major Bell never intended to impute
that the vicar had appropriated any money received by him for any church
purpose and he did not seek to dictate to the vicar how he should dispose
of the £100. “Surely the apology, which was to
be published in the press, was sincere”, said Mr Joy. “Do you want to
make the defendant grovel?” Canon Grinter replied that he
considered the apology was not frank and that it would not in any way
clear his name. On Friday 16th June, the third day of the hearing, after retiring for just over an hour, the jury returned a verdict in favour of the vicar and awarded him £5 in damages with costs. The judge then described the case as “most discreditable and squalid”. He said that the damages could not be regarded as contemptuous though they were not generous. “I have disliked trying this as much as any case I remember”, he said. “The parties have a perfect right to come here for a verdict at your hands but it is a most unhappy thing that this action should ever have been fought.” NOTE: Canon Grinter, who had been vicar since 1919, tendered his resignation to the Bishop of Lincoln and left Bourne in November 1935. Cecil Bell never went back to the Abbey Church and left Bourne in 1940 to live at Eastbourne where he died in 1947, aged 78.
Go to: Main Index Villages Index
|
