{73}
More about the Building of Trinity Church, Huntingdon.—Completion of the Work.—How Brampton was Started.—An Amusing Circumstance.—The British School at Huntingdon.—Political.—Deplorable Ignorance.–Taxes.–The Threshing Machine.—Bread Riots.—Reform Bill.—Repeal of the Corn Laws.—John Bright at Huntingdon.—Mr. Geo. Day and Protection.—Won a Pound of Sago!—A £50,000 Bazaar.
In spite of the proverb about “Letting sleeping dogs lie,” I must, in justice to my father on the one hand, and the Rev. Millard on the other, refer to the question of the Baptistry. I can do so the more freely because I made no condition in giving the money I did (and I gave more than my father) about the Baptistry, and I did not in any way sympathise with my father in the course he took. As regards my father, first, they were not obliged to accept the money if they did not approve of the conditions; further, remember, my father had been a Quaker, and he still held his old opinions as regards the ordinance of Baptism. Further still, he made no condition that there should not be a Baptistry on the premises, and he always considered that he lost his {74} farm merely owing to the Baptist services at Houghton.
Then, as regards Mr. Millard, the minister, he was most unjustly treated afterwards by several leading ministers of the denomination because he was a consenting party to accepting a donation to the church on the condition that a Baptistry was not in the Church proper.
Now mark, that deed before the building was commenced was read over to the late Mr. Charles Foster and the late Mr. George Foster, of Cambridge, both of them being Baptists, for their approval or otherwise, and neither of them took any exception to the conditions. The deed was also read over to the Rev. Dr. Brock, of London, and he did not object. Mr. Michael Foster had the deed read over to the above gentlemen, no doubt, for his own protection, in case anyone in the denomination should blame him afterwards.
It was some time after the completion of the Church that Mr. Millard was blamed by Mr. Brock (who, it appears, had forgotten that he had not objected to the deed, and so inconsistent are even the best of men that Mr. Brock afterwards took exception to the church because it had a spire—apparently forgetting that his own church had two spires).
Upon its being decided that the Church should be built, Mr. Tarring, sen., architect to the Congregational Chapel Building So-{75}ciety, was selected to draw and submit plans, and the work was commenced in the Spring of 1867, and was finished and opened in the autumn of 1868.
After the church was completed, a considerable debt remained; the purchase of the building site, the church itself, the party walls, organ, furniture, etc., etc., cost something over £11,000, and while the debt remained, some of the principal contributors connected with the church and congregation gave a yearly fixed sum to meet the interest on the debt. So it was decided to stop the continuance of this yearly burden, to make a great effort to extinguish the debt. Everyone nobly put their shoulders to the work, and the building was freed from all pecuniary responsibility. I gave another £1,000; my father, who was then in failing health, also promised £500 if he lived, but he died before the day came for finishing the matter up; and I paid also the £500 which he conditionally promised. My father had given £500 towards the purchase of the Trinity House, a residence for the minister, just before he died.
In concluding particulars about the erection of the church, I should like to say there were others in the congregation “who, according to their means,” gave quite as largely as did my father and myself.
More recently a debt has been cleared off Trinity House and the caretaker’s cottage.
So much for the material building. Some short record of the commencement of the {76} spiritual work in the town should be given. It must be very brief, as I do not know the commencement of it personally.
The late Rev. Mr. Wright (father-in-law of the late Rev. Millard) kept a school at the Old Slepe Hall, St. Ives. He was a Congregationalist, but was persuaded to give up the School and become the first pastor of the Church at Huntingdon, which church was conducted on the principle of a Union of Independents and Baptists. In fact, the deed was broad enough to give even Quakers an admission to membership, which, at that time, was very remarkable, and I think worthy of all praise. The late Mr. Foster, of Huntingdon, surgeon, and father of Professor Foster, of Cambridge, had come into the town as assistant, and afterwards as partner, to the late Mr. Wilson, surgeon (who was a staunch Churchman). Mr. Foster was a Baptist and an energetic worker in all church work. In conjunction with him and Mr. Dear, sen., Mr. Harrat, Mr. Miller, sen., Mr. Randall and Mr. Honey, a Church was formed, and became an agent of great good in the town, and was the means of forming the religious character of the next generation. Mr. Wright was succeeded by Mr. Millard, who became an active coadjutor with Mr. Foster and the others above-named. After a time Mr. Millard left, and went to London, but at the time the Huntingdon Mill was finished, and I, in consequence, removed from St. Ives to Huntingdon, he returned, and again became the pastor of the church. It provi-{77}dentially happened that Mr. Millard could not at first get a house in Huntingdon, and so went to live at Brampton, and, while residing there, began to preach on the Village Green. To that circumstance may be attributed the building of the Brampton Chapel.
The Huntingdon Church became a missionary church, a band of local preachers going into the villages, which ultimately led to chapels being built at Perry, Buckden, Stukeley, and Great Staughton. The latter place has been handed over to the St. Neots Church, being too distant from Huntingdon to be managed by the Huntingdon Church.
Mr. Millard, on his return to the County, became Secretary to the Baptist Union, and, as time went on, the work of the Union increased, so he gave up the pastorate at Huntingdon, and gave all his time to the Union. He ultimately had to retire, and became pastor of a Baptist Church at Derby, where he died. Mr. Millard was succeeded by the late Mr. Steadman Davies, then by the late Mr. Wells, and now Mr. Guiton is the pastor (1896).
An amusing circumstance took place at the recognition of one of the later ministers, illustrating what a power Mr. Foster was in the Church. Mr. Ridgley, the senior deacon at the time, was speaking, and, like all persons getting into years, spoke as though the past was better than the present, there not then being the same freedom of opinion as at present, saying, “Ah, when Deacon {78} Foster suggested anything, and Pastor Millard endorsed it, the matter was settled without any further discussion.” This is the old, old tale, that a good despotic government works with less friction than a more democratic one.
In conclusion, the Church has continued to prosper. Since the building was erected, a new fine-toned organ has taken the place of the new one, built by Holditch (which cost £500), and was placed in the church at the time it was opened. The latter, built by McConachie, cost about £750, and is paid for; two years ago the church was cleaned, decorated, etc., and also the lecture rooms and class rooms. This also has been paid for. The caretaker’s cottage was purchased and paid for, and the debt on Trinity House has been paid off, and all the village chapels are free of debt. The only debt now is on the alterations of the British School, which the Education Department compelled us to make, and it is hoped that will be cleared off during the next twelve months.
Up to 1871 there was no British School in Huntingdon. Up to the passing of the Act compelling everyone to be educated, the Huntingdon Nonconformists thought, as good citizens, they ought to take their share in the education of the masses. The present school was started, the old Chapel in the Grammar School Lane being its location, and from 1871 to 1896 (now) it has educated, and is educating, about half the children of {79} the town, the National School educating the other half. I don’t think there is any antagonism between the two sets of schools, though there may be friendly rivalry. The school building consisted of an efficient suite of rooms up to the requirements of the Education Department in 1896.
Up to the days of the Reform Bill of 1832, the Quakers, of which Society my grandfather was a member, were all Tories; out of gratitude, I presume, because they had received relief from disabilities from the Government of the day, which was generally Tory. My father has frequently told me that, when a little boy, upon hearing his father talk politics with some gentleman of his acquaintance, he would say to himself, “My father is all wrong; when I grow up I shall not be a Tory.”
As he was not educated in Liberal principles, they must have been indigenous. As regards myself, I have always been firmly, without any wavering, of the same political faith as my father.
It will be necessary, to fully understand the political position I am about to describe, to give a brief account of the period just before, and at the time of, the Reform Bill. The Test and Corporation Acts had only just been repealed, which Acts prevented anyone being a member of a Town Council who did not take the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, according to the rites of the Church of England, at least once a year, and, if that was not sufficient to exclude a Roman {80} Catholic, every Town Councillor, I believe, had to make oath on his acceptance of office that he did not believe in the “damnable doctrine of Transubstantiation.”
The masses of the people could neither read nor write, and those above them held the opinion that it would be dangerous to the State if it were otherwise, and they literally, incredible as it may appear now, did not know their right hand from the left; because, when being up as Militia men for training, the men would have a wisp of straw on one arm, and hay on the other; the Drill Sergeant, instead of calling out to left or right, would say, “Straw about,” or “Hay about,” as the case might be.
Then their home life was lamentable, owing not only to the high duty on corn, which, in bad harvests, would put wheat up to farmers’ prices, say 60s., 70s., 80s., 90s.,and 100s. per qr., and in my grandfather’s ledger we found flour once entered at 135s. per sack of 280 lbs.; then every article of food, wearing apparel, medicine, salt, leather, etc., etc., was heavily taxed, and, with the high price of wheat as named above, agricultural labourers’ wages were only 10s. per week.
About 1830 horse-power thrashing machines came in for thrashing the corn in the place of the flail. This caused the people to rise, and mobs would go about on dark nights to the farmers’ farmyards and break the machines.
At Wyton, Brown and Goodman received {81} a threatening letter, and though the machine was not broken, one night someone with a sharp instrument ripped up the flanks of three milch cows. The man was discovered, and transported for life.
At this period there were bread riots in the large towns, and people were shot down by the military. What was the remedy for this state of things? Free speech was scarcely allowed; the Government was in the hands of the aristocracy; the middle class were almost powerless; towns as small as Huntingdon, and much smaller, sent two members to Parliament, while towns like Manchester and Birmingham were not represented at all.
At last came the remedy in the shape of the Reform Bill of 1832, which infranchised the large towns and enabled the middle class to have a share with the aristocracy in the government of the country. This act of policy and justice was wrenched from the Tory party almost at the cost of a revolution. How the Lords, when the Commons sent up the Bill to them, refused to pass it, is a matter of history. It is generally understood that Lord John Russell, then the head of the Whig Government, was preparing to resort to force if the Lords had not yielded.
Mr. Goodman and my father, thinking that a revolution was impending, had fixed upon a place where to bury their money, etc.
With the exception of occasional bread riots, the country was quiet until about 1833 {82} to 1840, when some gentlemen in Manchester formed the Anti-Corn Law League, to agitate for the repeal of the Corn Laws. Richard Cobden and John Bright were two of the leading agitators. They were sent to Parliament to agitate the repeal of the Corn Laws in the House, and a powerful agitation commenced out of doors in all the principal towns of the Kingdom. A large conference was held at Manchester, at which 70 Nonconformist ministers attended as a deputation to strengthen the hands of the Repealers. The clergy of the Church of England gave no sign, their sympathies, as usual, going with the classes rather than with the suffering masses.
While this agitation was progressing, I remember the Authorities breaking up a large out-door meeting in London. I also saw the military being marched through London to the North-Western Railway Station at Euston Square, en route to put down bread riots in the large towns, and the populace shouting to the soldiers, “Surely you won’t shoot your starving fellow-countrymen in Lancashire.”
In the summer of 1843, the Anti-Corn Law League sent a deputation to the county town of Huntingdon. The meeting was held on the Common, between the town and the Gas Works, and was to have been addressed by Cobden and Bright, but the former did not come, having an attack of bronchitis. His place was filled by a gentleman named Moore, an Irish-{83}man. I must explain here that up to now these meetings were allowed by the county gentlemen to be held without the County party being represented. Therefore, the repealers had it all their own way, and upon a show of hands being demanded for the repeal of the Corn Laws, they would get an overwhelming majority. Now it was totally different in Hunts., owing to the great Liberal leader in the County, George Game Day, being a Protectionist; and, being also a good speaker, he offered to champion the County party. The consequence was, it was a real test of public opinion. You had on one side the County gentry, clergy, farmers, in fact, the whole Tory party; on the other side some labourers, shop-keepers, etc., who were not obtaining their living from the land. Wagons were placed on the ground, and the speakers on each side occupied their respective wagons. The Tories, as usual, had hired roughs, just under the speakers, to interrupt them. Mr. Moore lost his temper, through being disturbed so much. John Bright made a fine speech, though he was much interrupted. He was dressed in regular Quaker costume, and was speaking of the starving artisans in the large towns, when one of the disturbers shouted at him, “You look, old Broad-brim, as if you had a good dinner every day of your life.” The retort came sharp and quick, “Yes, my friend, I have; I am not standing here to advocate my own claims, but those of my starving countrymen.”
When Mr. George Day rose to speak, he {84} was greeted with a storm of hisses from his political friends. Not because he was about to advocate Protection, but because he did so from the Tory wagon, his friends feeling that he might have had one of the neutral wagons, as the Tories had prosecuted him only a few years before concerning some votes, and had tried to get him struck off the Rolls. When the show of hands was called for, I stood by the side of Mr. Robert Daintree, sen., of Fenton, a large farmer, and he said if he were the chairman he would not be able to say which side had the majority. Of course, the Chairman, being a Tory, ruled the Protectionists had it. On Monday morning all London was placarded with posters announcing “Great defeat of the Anti-Corn Law League in Hunts.” I remember following John Bright, with my father, along Princess Street to ask him to stop the Sunday over. He looked very fagged with his exertion, and preferred going back to London. The next day, Sunday, walking, as was customary after service at St. Ives, part of the way to Houghton with Mr. Day, he said, “I was hurt when my friends hissed me yesterday.” My father replied, “No one hissed louder than I did.”
A large meeting was held by the League in Covent Garden Theatre, at which I was present. The Rev. Dr. Croly, of the City of London School, brought down the house by saying “The last time I stood on these boards,” so and so. There were roars of laughter, because, standing on the stage, {85} the audience thought he had forgotten where he was standing; but he used the word “boards” as a joke.
Then there was also a large bazaar held in the same theatre, at which I was present with the Rev. James Harcourt. Amongst the amusements was a lottery, all prizes and no blanks, but the prizes were arranged to be such articles no one was likely to take them away, and you could, by paying half the value of the article drawn, put it back and draw again. I drew a wheelbarrow the first time, a looking glass in the second, and a pound of sago in the third.
Mr. Harcourt and myself then walked round to inspect the various stalls. While looking at a stall on our left, we made as though to go on, and then stopped. On our right, at a stall, was a very lively young Irish girl, and, seeing us hesitate, she exclaimed, “Come on, you need not be afraid of me,” and, dangling a pair of worked braces, said, “Do you want to buy a pair of the likes of these?”
This bazaar, I think, realised fifty thousand pounds.
The Protectionists held a large meeting in the Theatre to advocate their side of the question.
Somewhere about this time a General Election took place, which turned upon Protection v. Free Trade, and Sir Robert Peel was returned by a considerable majority to uphold the Corn Laws.