Canon John Grinter

Major Cecil Bell

The 1933 libel action brought by
the Vicar of Bourne against
Major Cecil Bell

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