‘DIED, on Saturday last, aged 66, Elizabeth Wainer, better known as “Old Betty,” who had been for half-a-century the keeper of a brothel in this town.  Great dissatisfaction was evinced by her relations and friends that the Rev. W. M. Coles, the curate, would not perform the burial-service over her body in the church, as the deceased had been duly baptised, (and, therefore, according to the Bishop of Exeter, “regenerated!”) christened, and confirmed, and had always paid church-rates.  Some few other parties, we find, think the rev. gentleman acted inconsistently, seeing that he did read the service at the grave-side, in doing which he spoke of the deceased’s hope of a joyful resurrection, and afterwards demanded the customary fees.  Now, we cannot coincide in this opinion.  Mr. Colles was not bound to admit the corpse into the church, while, we believe, he was bound to read the service at the grave-side:  as curate, he was also bound to ask for the fees – not for himself, but for the representatives of the non-resident vicar.  Nor can we join in blaming a clergyman because he hesitates in the performance of a solid mockery.  The less said on such an occasion the better.’

‘At Melton Mowbray on the 11^th, Mrs Eliz. Wainer, late Chapel Street.

‘Refusing to Bury the Dead. – In our obituary of this day will be found a notice of the death of a noted character in Melton; and it proved to be an event when the domineering spirit of priestcraft had an opportunity of venting its full spleen, both before the spirit had gone to the God who gave it, and also when there was nothing left but an inanimate lump of clay.  We shall simply record the facts as we are advised of them from a respectable source, and then leave all Christian people to judge of them.  Mrs Wainer was a public character for many years in Melton, and pursued such a course of life as no man would vindicate; but as there are always two sides to a question, we may be permitted to add that, wherever disease or destitution made its appearance in her neighbourhood, her’s was the heart and the hand ever foremost to mitigate suffering.  She was taken dangerously ill on Friday last, and wished for someone to pray by her; and, at her own request, the Curate of the parish was sent for.  Upon his arrival, he commenced a tirade against her respecting her past life, and resolutely refused to comply with her wishes at all; and had it not been for the goods offices of some neighbours, she might have left this world without any spiritual consolation whatever.  However, on Sunday morning she died; and on Tuesday her children were startled with the information that the clergyman would refuse the body admittance into the church, and would also refuse to read that part of the service at all.  Great, therefore, was the general excitement when the corpse arrived at the church gates, and no minister made his appearance according to custom; and still greater when, for the first time within the memory of man, the church doors were found closed against the dead.  After the mourners had waited for a sufficient time, they retired again with the corpse, amidst vehement cries of “shame” from the people, to the new Church of England burial ground, where ready stood the Rev. Wm. Coles, [sic] and he commenced reading the funeral service in his canonical dress.  The relatives of the deceased, however, refused to listen to him, and after depositing the body in the ground, they left the clergyman continuing to read the usual service for the dead, over the body which he had refused to admit into the church. The event has caused great excitement in the town, and is calculated to rend wider the division which, owing to such uncharitable courses, has for some time existed.’

                                 

‘In the Lincoln, Rutland, and Stamford Mercury for the 16^th August, we find this narrative.

The Pharisees, as Mr Coles might do, objected to Our Lord that he had too much care for sinners. Only the Pharisees could move Him to anger. Whether Mr Coles be a High Churchman, or a Low Churchman, we know not. But we know that he ought not to be teacher in the Church of Christ – he needs too greatly to be taught.’

Sir,

    I have just seen a paragraph from the ‘Examiner’ in your paper this day, which states, that Mrs Wainer, of Melton Mowbray, “was upon her deathbed, and the curate of the parish refused at her own solicitation that he would come and pray with her.”  I beg to state that this is a malicious falsehood.  As you have thought fit to bring this matter before your readers, I may add that Mrs Wainer has kept a brothel in this town for almost half a century (as I am credibly informed).  She sent for me and I went to her house, accompanied by the Rev. G.B. Hill, assistant curate of Melton: I preached the Gospel to her, prayed for her and exhorted her in the kindest manner to repent of her sins, and look to the Saviour.  I can prove this.  The Examiner represents me as a Pharisee, says, “Probably he preaches Phillpotts,” and adds, “We know that he ought not to be a teacher in the church of Christ, he needs too greatly to be taught.”
     I approve of the liberty of the press, as a safeguard for the liberty of the people, but I regret that your paper should be made the medium of circulating a false and malicious libel, followed by scoffing insinuations and assertions, under the semblance of zeal for the truth.
   It is true that the body of Mrs Wainer was not brought into the church.  She seldom darkened the church doors whilst living, and was not permitted to defile them when dead.  With reference to the yells of the parishioners, the Examiner states, “the people yelled their disgust at this.”  I defy the writer to produce a single respectable inhabitant of Melton Mowbray who joined in such yells, or sympathised with the mob.  I read the service as required by the law (which the Examiner describes as a “soliloquy,” notwithstanding the number of persons assembled on the occasion); and, with reference to my preaching, I teach in the church of Christ according to the ability which God has given to me.
    Hoping that you will insert this contradiction of the false statements which have appeared in your paper,

I am Sir, your obedient servant,

W.M. COLLES, Curate of Melton Mowbray.

The Vicarage, Melton Mowbray, Aug. 26.

‘The Times publishes a letter from the Reverend Mr Colles, the curate of Melton Mowbray, denying the material part of the charge which the Lincoln and Stamford Mercury had made against him, and which was copied into last weeks Examiner with a comment which the case quite justified.
   “She sent for me and I went to her house, accompanied by the Rev. G.B. Hill, assistant-curate of Melton; I preached the Gospel to her, prayed for her, and exhorted her in the kindest manner to repent of her sins, and look to the Saviour. I can prove this. The Examiner represents me as a Pharisee, says, “Probably he preaches Phillpots,” and adds, “we know that he ought not to be a teacher in the church of Christ, he needs too, greatly to be taught.”   I approve of the liberty of the press, as a safeguard for the liberty of the people, but I regret that your paper should be made the medium of circulating a false and malicious libel, followed by scoffing insinuations and assertions, under the semblance of zeal for the truth.   It is true that the body of Mrs Wainer was not brought into the church. She seldom darkened the church doors whilst living, and was not permitted to defile them when dead. With reference to the yells of the parishioners, the ‘Examiner’ states, “the people yelled their disgust at this.” I defy the writer to produce a single respectable inhabitant of Melton Mowbray who joined in such yells, or sympathised with the mob. I read the service as required by the law (Which the Examiner describes as a “soliloquy,” notwithstanding the number of persons assembled on the occasion); and, with reference to my preaching, I teach in the church of Christ according to the ability which God has given to me.”

On reflection Mr Colles will doubtless transfer his answer to the journal which originated the charge against him. Meanwhile we are glad to find, by this letter, that the worse half of the case, and the only part on which we commented, can be denied distinctly. The denial is quite satisfactory. We cheerfully retract our comment. 

Our readers will remember that we did not found our observation on that part of the case which Mr Colles recognises as correct – the shutting of the church doors upon the body, and the yelling of a mob in consequence. We did not, and we do not, comment upon this; because it has now, we regret to say, become so much a common practice, that it would not be fair, for this alone, to hold up individuals for censure.  If malicious falsehood prompted the original mis-statement, Mr Colles may rather thank us, than be angry with us, as the means of bringing it into the light. We may note that in condensing our report of the case we did not state, as Mr Colles seems to think, that so much burial service as he gave was an absolute soliloquy. We said it was so, in as far as the relatives and mourners were concerned; they being stated to have left the ground, refusing to be present at it. Mr Colles was too angry very clearly to understand what he read. We wish, for his own sake, that his reply had been written temperately; but in temper in such a matter we are far from desiring to make unkind comment. The accusation made against Mr Colles justified a momentary anger, and required an instant refutation.’

’PUBLIC MEETING. – On Thursday evening, the 29th ult., a meeting of the inhabitants was held in the Church School-room, “to consider what steps should be taken in reference to the unwarrantable and false attack made in the Stamford Mercury upon the Rev. W. M. Colles, Curate of the Parish.”  The attack alluded to appeared in the Stamford Mercury of the 16th Ult., and falsely charged the rev. gentleman with refusing the request of an aged female of notorious character to pray with her on her death-bed.  The assistant-Curate, who accompanied him to her bedside, attested that her wishes were both kindly and fervently complied with.  The Times and Examiner have also taken up and more widely propagated the calumnious falsehood, – making its complete refutation still more needful.  At this meeting the speakers strongly condemned the conduct of the Stamford Mercury’s editor for putting forth this and many other falsehoods about our church, our ministers and our schools, which have latterly found a ready place in its columns.  It was decided not to seek redress for this last gross calumny in a court of law, but to undeceive the public respecting it by means of an address to the Rev. W. M. Colles, to be signed by the inhabitants and inserted in the Times as well as the local newspapers, including the Stamford Mercury, and also to circulate it by handbills in the town and neighbourhood. A subscription to defray the consequent expenses was at once entered into by the meeting, which was most numerously and respectably attended.  The address, with its numerous signatures, will be found among our advertisements.

     The Examiner of last Saturday, refers to the letter sent by Mr Colles to the Times, in refutation of the charge referred against him by the correspondent of the Stamford Mercury, and copied into the Examiner with a “comment which the case quite justified.”  Surely there are two very material words omitted from this sentence? it should read,  “the case, as stated,” etc.  The editor adds, after quoting the essential portion of Mr Colles’ letter, “On reflection, Mr Colles will doubtless transfer his anger to the journal which originated the charge against him.  Meanwhile we are glad to find, by this letter, that the worst half of the case, and the only part on which we commented, can be denied distinctly.  The denial is quite satisfactory.  We cheerfully retract our comment.  Our readers will remember that we d id not found our observation on that part of the case which Mr Colles recognises as correct – the shutting of the church doors upon the body, and the yelling of a mob in consequence.  We did not know, and we do not comment on this; because it has now, we regret to say, become so much a common practice, that it would not be fair, for this alone, to hold up individuals for censure.  If malicious falsehood prompted the original mis-statement, Mr Colles may rather thank us, than be angry with us, as the means of bringing it into the light.”  So far well.  We hope the matter will now be suffered to drop.  Mr Colles was justly accused and condemned;  he has cleared himself by a simple recital of facts – his fellow townsmen have affirmed his honourable acquittal in the most gratifying manner.  (Editor L. M.) 

Four Decades of Service and Dedication to the Parish