Given by Valerie Bonham on 4^th May 2001at St Andrew’s Church, Clewer Village.

Published here with the permission of the author.

Copyright ©Valerie Bonham May 2001.

No part of this work may be reproduced in any way without the prior permission of the Copyright holder.

In 1844 the parish of Clewer was in a state of turmoil: William Henry Roberts, Rector since 1827 had ceased his ministrations in 1840, due to drink, and the living had been put under sequestration. It was not until four years later, in 1844, that the Provost and Fellows of Eton College appointed a new incumbent, the Revd Thomas Thellusson Carter, then aged thirty-eight.

For Carter it was something of a homecoming. His father, the Revd Thomas Carter had been Vice-Provost of Eton, and his mother, Mary, was the daughter of Henry Proctor of Clewer. Carter was born at Eton, and he had a brother and five sisters. He entered Eton aged six and spent twelve years there, leaving as Captain of the Oppidans. He matriculated at Christchurch Oxford on December 8th 1825, and went into residence in 1827. There he met Edward Bouverie Pusey, who in 1828 became Regius Professor of Hebrew. W E Gladstone was in the year behind Carter, and Newman was still at Oriel and Vicar of the University church. Carter graduated with a First in Classics in 1831 but failed to gain an Oriel fellowship.

On October 21st 1832 he was ordained deacon by Bishop Burgess of Salisbury and served as curate at St Mary's Reading. At that time Reading was still in Salisbury diocese. Spiritual life in Reading was at a low ebb, and following Carter's arrival the vicar went away for six weeks leaving the parish in the hands of the new curate. In 1833 Carter's father became Vicar of Burnham in Buckinghamshire and he offered his son a curacy there. Thus on December 22nd 1833 Carter was ordained priest by Dr Kaye, Bishop of Lincoln, Buckinghamshire being in his diocese. Carter was to stay there for five years during which time he was greatly influenced by the Tracts for the Times which were being published by Newman, Keble and friends. He later wrote, "It is impossible to exaggerate the immediate effect [of the Tracts]. In reading them as they came out, one felt a sense of interest and earnestness in religious doctrines one had not known before …. The Church, its priesthood, and Sacraments acquired a reality unfelt before..."

On November 26th 1835 Carter married Mary Ann Gould and they had a son and two daughters. Mary Gould had been a childhood friend of Richard Hurrell Froude, another of the Oxford Movement leaders, and it was through her Dorset family that Carter met many other Tractarian sympathisers. In 1838 he took the living of Piddlehinton in Dorset. This proved to be an unhappy appointment during which his health broke down. Two years leave of absence followed during which he returned to Burnham, and in the spring of 1844 he accepted the Clewer living which was in the gift of Eton College. Thus began a connection with Clewer parish which was to last until his death in 1901.

The Oxford or Tractarian Movement which so influenced Carter had begun in Oxford in 1833, and by means of a series of pamphlets called Tracts for the Times, had reawakened the spiritual and devotional life of the Church of England especially regarding the Eucharist. But some people feared an attempt to lead the Established Church towards Roman Catholicism. Their fears were enhanced by·a series of events: the secession to Rome of Newman and friends in 1845, a doctrinal crisis over Baptism in 1850 which led to further secessions including Henry Manning, and the re-establishment in 1851 of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. Hysterical letters to the press took a more sinister turn in the shape of rioting in the London Streets.

It was within this climate of spiritual re-awakening and growing turmoil that Carter began his ministry in Clewer and he was horrified at the conditions there. Years of neglect had left the parish church in an almost ruinous state: parts of the walls were shored up with iron clamps; the font was used as a receptacle for men's hats during the service; and the poor were unable to worship there because they could not afford the pew rents, a common abuse which had grown up in the eighteenth century. But one of the worst practices was that the Churchwardens distributed half the alms to those who came to the Eucharist. This had the effect of repelling many from the Sacrament, while those who received it were looked upon as beggars.

As if all this were not enough the parish itself was in spiritual and moral disarray. The people had been neglected for a considerable time and this had caused concern to other clergymen in the town. The new church of Holy Trinity Windsor had opened in 1844 to serve both the Garrison and that part of Clewer parish which was within the Borough. Clewer parish was compensated for this territorial loss by the acquisition of the hamlet of Dedworth, hitherto part of Windsor parish, though separated from it geographically. The people of Dedworth were poor, as were the majority of Carter's parishioners, not only in Clewer village itself, but also in the hamlets of Spital and Clewer Green which made up the rest of this large and diverse parish. There was also a notorious slum area known as Clewer Fields, where in addition to poverty, other social evils such as drunkenness and prostitution were rife. In December 1848 Mariquita Tennant, the Spanish widow of an English clergyman, took a young woman from Clewer Fields into her home, (`the Limes') next to Clewer Church. Her intention was to train this abused young woman as a servant, but very soon she was approached by others and the result was the foundation of the Clewer House of Mercy, of which more later. But Carter had wealthy and influential parishioners too, and as will be seen, they proved to be a mixed blessing.

In accordance with Tractarian teaching, Carter began the ominous task of introducing order and decency into the worship. Nor had he neglected the material needs of the poor. A benefit society was established; part of the glebe had been given for allotments; house to house visiting was begun and a Temperance Society was formed to fight the drink problem, which in its day was as serious as the present day drug problem. By I853 Carter's health had once again broken down, this time due to overwork and he was forced to recuperate at Folkestone. Upon his return he set about restoring the fabric of St Andrew's church. This was to take about fifteen years, the building being sympathetically restored by his friend, the architect Henry Woodyer.

Carter was assisted by a number of curates, some of whom were also Minor Canons of St George's Chapel. And also, there was the work of the Clewer House of Mercy. Mariquita Tennant had been forced through illness to give up this work in March 1851. By this time a 15 acre estate near Clewer Green, called Nightingale Place, had been acquired and the work vested in Trustees. But Mrs Tennant's departure brought a crisis for Carter - who would continue the work? It needed a woman, but a woman of strength, a woman of vision, a woman with extraordinary gifts. Such a woman came to Clewer early in 1851, to be the companion to her invalid sister who was married to Carter's curate, Charles Harris. She was recently widowed and had dedicated her life to God by her husband's deathbed. She was the daughter of an Irish peer; a friend of Dr Pusey; a follower of the Oxford Movement, a reader of the Oxford Tracts; well-born and well connected. Her name was Harriet Monsell. She heard of Carter's need at the House of Mercy and offered to help. At the end of May 1851 she was clothed by Carter in the habit of a Sister of Mercy, but there was no convent, no Rule, no Community - not yet.

But Harriet Monsell's arrival in Clewer not only changed her life, it also changed Carter's because here was someone who understood his theology, his spirituality, and, by his own admission, he grew through the experience of working alongside her. Both Carter and Harriet Monsell knew of the recent revival of Religious Sisterhoods - the first since the Reformation - and they realised that it was in the context of lives dedicated to God that the House of Mercy should be re-founded. And so it was that in November 1852 Harriet Monsell was installed as the first Mother Superior of the Community of St John Baptist. In addition to his parish duties Carter assumed the role of Warden to the Community, a position he kept until the end of his life. Within a very short time Nightingale Place was demolished and the first of Henry Woodyer's great red brick buildings was completed. Woodyer remained the architect of all the main buildings up until his death in 1896. And he never charged a penny. The Community grew phenomenally and the buildings with it, the crowning glory being the chapel completed in 1881. But most important of all was the depth of friendship between Carter and Mother Harriet - it was I suggest, on a par with those far more famous friendships of St Francis &. St Clare, St Benedict &. St Scholastica, or St John of the Cross & St Teresa of Avila. And as events in the parish unfolded, Carter would need all the support he could muster.

For within the wider Church events were turning in a sad direction. The opponents of the Tractarians were becoming more vocal and were joined by a violent minority who in 1850 had begun a campaign of disrupting services and damaging church interiors. A new, younger generation of clergy was arising who placed added emphasis on ceremonial. They were soon dubbed 'ritualists' and became the target for the protesters who introduced a new tactic - legal proceedings to force the removal of articles such as candlesticks, crosses, and altar cloths, and to prevent the wearing of Eucharistic vestments The rubric in the Prayer Book stated that `such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof.., shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.' But nowhere did it specify exactly which ornaments were in use in 1549, and this ambiguity led to much strife over the next few years.

A number of famous court cases followed to the growing concern of men like Carter who realised what harm this was doing to the Church. The situation was not helped by the fact that the same court frequently reversed judgement from one case to the next so that ornaments once declared lawful might be declared unlawful a few months later. But real hardship was being caused not only to the clergy who stood in danger of losing their benefices should the court find against them, but also to their congregations who faced physical assault from the protesters. In 1860 the English Church Union was formed to assist those who were being harassed, and the legal costs of many persecuted clergy were paid through the establishment of a defence fund. Five years later the Church Association was formed, its avowed aim being to fight ritualism by legal action.

As the 1870s dawned the situation looked very black indeed and now the clouds began to gather over Clewer. Carter's old friend Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, himself a mild Tractarian, was translated to the diocese of Winchester, and his place at Oxford was taken by John Fielder Mackarness. The new bishop was not a Tractarian but he was beyond doubt a pastor who cared deeply about his clergy and people and was determined to deal fairly with everyone. But Carter's influential parishioners had been viewing his 'improvements' to the church with mounting indignation, and they saw the arrival of a new bishop as the ideal opportunity to make trouble for their incumbent. Therefore at Easter 1871 a petition signed by 125 Clewer parishioners was presented to the bishop outlining the reasons why they felt unable to attend their parish church.

Among the reasons given were that Carter:

• preached the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
• that he `bowed to idols;
• that he directed the removal of tablets relating to church bequests;
• that a removable cross was placed on the Communion Table, and that it `is worshipped by the Sisters of Mercy with little children under their care on entering and leaving the Church';
• that a cross had been fixed on the screen and a `Roman Catholic' cross [i.e. a crucifix) in the churchyard `in defiance of our Protestant faith'.

The petitioners concluded as follows: `We forebear entering further into the details of the notorious Practices at Clewer which are abhorrent to the senior inhabitants ... but we desire in true Christian Spirit to seek your Lordship's counsel.. in the hope that your Lordship's wisdom may predominate in defending our inherent rights to our ancient church as established for the welfare and future happiness of the subjects of our beloved Sovereign...'

The copy of this petition preserved in the Bodleian Library does not include the 125 names, but doubtless it came as a cruel and heartless blow for Carter, who was at this time a very sick man. A combination of overwork and grief following the death of his wife culminated in total collapse; no doubt the growing hostility of many who, by virtue of their social status, considered themselves to be `senior inhabitants' contributed to his illness. The bishop's response has not been preserved, but in view of later events it may be guessed where his sympathies lay. In the meantime he gave Carter leave of absence so that he might go abroad to recover his health, and perhaps hoped that the controversy would abate. This period of convalescence lasted for something like two years, the parish being run meanwhile by his curates.

Carter's opponents were not prepared to acquiesce simply because he was a sick man. Despite his absence pastoral work was proceeding in earnest in the Clewer Fields area, pioneered by the Community of St John Baptist, and by this time under the care of Carter's senior curate the Revd G D Nicholas. When Carter returned to duty in July 1872 the Clewer St Stephen's Mission, which was the result of this endeavour, was being viewed with growing suspicion by the `senior inhabitants' of the parish who saw it as yet another Romish inroad. A further petition was made to the bishop, but Carter was not without support. There is in the archives of the Community of St John Baptist a Memorial to Carter dated November l7th 1873 and signed by 53 worshippers at Clewer church who lived outside the parish. It expressed their deep gratitude and affection `as a proof of the perfect confidence which we have in your judgement.'

Carter was deeply moved and replied with characteristic humility: `I am thankful for your confidence and favourable estimate of what I have endeavoured to do... I can truly say that it has been, throughout my ministry... my one aim and desire to teach and to practise only what the Church of England intended as I most conscientiously believe to maintain as the rightful Catholic heritage of her children. I would ask you to remember me sometimes in your prayers that in these times of peculiar difficulty and fears as to what may be about to come upon us, I may be guided by God's Holy Spirit in all things. And also that you would pray for this parish that its divisions may be healed and the hearts of all enlarged to receive the Truth and the love of it.' This reply summarises the Tractarian standpoint, that the movement was a return to the principles of the early undivided church rather than an imitation of contemporary Roman Catholic usages.

Until this time ecclesiastical law suits including `ritualist' cases had been heard in a church court - the Court of Arches, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as Court of Appeal. But in 1874 Parliament passed what Disraeli called `a Bill to put down ritualism.' This was the Public Worship Regulation Act and it established a new civil court, to be presided over by Lord Penzance a former Divorce Court judge. Many churchmen were scandalised at what seemed to be outright interference by the State in ecclesiastical matters and were determined to ignore the new court. During the next few years many clergy were brought to trial under the terms of the new Act, and of those found guilty five were sent to prison for contempt of Court because they refused to obey what they regarded as a secular court.

Armed with the ammunition of the new Act Carter's opponents went into action once more. The Act gave leave to a number of `aggrieved parishioners' to make representations to the bishop who had the power of veto over whether or not legal proceedings should be made. In 1877 Captain Thomas Bulkeley of Clewer Lodge along with certain others attempted to bring charges against Carter, and on September 3rd 1877 this was vetoed by Bishop Mackarness. Bulkeley was not a worshipper at Clewer church, preferring to worship at the garrison church of Holy Trinity when residing at Clewer Lodge. But the real force behind Bulkeley and all who took up the anti-Carter cause was the Church Association. Mackarness later wrote to the Diocesan clergy, `Having discovered that the persons who would really maintain the suit were strangers to the parish, I withheld my consent.' Writing more forthrightly to the Archdeacon of Berkshire he said: `I refused, because a bond, studiously concealed from me, was accidentally discovered, which gave, as I thought, to persons unconnected with the parish the control and direction, of the intended suit.'

So it seemed that the Act was ineffective if the bishop was prepared to exercise his right of veto. But there was on the Statute Book another Act, passed primarily to deal with dishonest or immoral clergy; this was the Church Discipline Act of 1840. In 1878 Mr Edmund Foster of Clewer Manor sought to bring proceedings against Carter under the 1840 Act, but again the bishop refused to act. He wrote: `the complainant having candidly stated that he had allowed a well-known Association, foreign to the parish, to use his name. When a third application reached me, it was impossible for me to doubt that members of this Association were the real movers in the whole business. I found myself in conflict with a wealthy and fanatical body, which might have as little scruple in ruining a Bishop with law-costs, as in turning the key of a prison door on a refractory parish priest...'

It was this third application which became the crux of the matter. The Church Association had found a new complainant, Dr Frederick Guilder Julius of The Hermitage, Clewer Green. Whilst legally a parishioner, Julius rarely resided within the parish and did not attend the church; indeed the affidavit dated December 28th 1878, was sworn at Her Majesty's Consular Court in Cairo. The Bishop was minded to veto the application as before. But now the Church Association endeavoured to force the Bishop's hand by challenging the right of veto. Section 3 of the Church Discipline Act stated that `...in every case of any clerk in holy orders... who may be charged with any offence against the laws ecclesiastical, or concerning whom there may exist scandal or evil report... it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese... on the application of any party complaining thereof,.. to issue a commission under his hand and seal... for the purpose of making inquiry as to the grounds of such charge or report...'

Undaunted by the bishop's veto Julius applied to the Queen's Bench Division for a writ of mandamus to force the Bishop to issue a Commission of Inquiry. Bishop Mackarness decided to stand firm and face the court himself. `My final determination to appear against it was formed,... certainly not out of any special personal liking for ceremonial novelties, but in view of the importance of vindicating the true independence of the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as handed down in England from the earliest times.'

The case was heard in February and March 1879, the Judges finding in favour of Julius in the following terms: `that the above enactment does not confer a discretion on the bishop, but imposes on him an obligation to proceed when complaint is made to him against a clergyman in respect of that which constitutes a sufficient ecclesiastical offence.' The Bishop appealed and the case was heard before the Lords Justice Bramwell, Baggallay and Thesiger. The original case had focused largely upon section 3 of the Church Discipline Act, but in the Court of Appeal attention switched to Carter and to Julius's charges against him. For the first time we learn the exact charges:

• the wearing of Eucharistic vestments;
• mixing water with the wine at the offertory;
• standing at the west side of the communion table with back turned to the congregation;
• bowing during the prayer of Consecration and elevating the bread and wine;
• making the sign of the Cross;
• using lighted altar candles;
• and singing the Agnus Dei.

The outcome of the Bishop's appeal was a reversal of the Queen's Bench decision: `When a complaint is made under the Church Discipline Act, s. 3... the bishop has a discretion whether he will issue a commission to inquire into the truth of the complaint, and no mandamus will lie to compel him to do so.' But this was not the end. Julius took the case to the House of Lords. Once more attention was focused not on the original charges but on the bishop's right of veto. The Lords of Appeal were the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns), together with Lords Selbourne, Blackburn and, ironically, Penzance. They upheld the Court of Appeal: Julius had finally lost his case and the bishop's veto was never questioned again.

The case of Julius v the Bishop of Oxford made legal history in establishing the principle that if a party has a discretion in a matter, i.e. they may act in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean they must do so. The Clewer case is cited when this point of law is at issue and has been used as recently as July 1986.

The case was settled as far as the law was concerned, but for Carter personally it was far from over. Throughout the proceedings he had been assured of the support of the majority of his parishioners who knew the true pastoral nature of his ministry amongst them. In 1878 at the start of the trouble a public meeting had been held and a resolution passed, `that this meeting desires to express its deep sympathy with the rector of this parish under the persecution with which he is threatened, and its confidence in him that he will maintain those principles for which he has ever contended.' Two further addresses expressing similar sentiments were sent to Carter together with 316 and 568 signatures respectively.

But the ceremonial for which Carter was prepared to stand trial was in the eyes of the law, unlawful.

Furthermore, Carter knew full well that Bishop Mackarness personally disapproved of what he had called `ceremonial novelties.' The bishop's defence of Carter had been purely pastoral, and Carter knew he might well be called upon to give up those practices under obedience. Carter's dilemma singled him out from the extremists who would have defied their bishop rather than accept compromise. But neither would Carter compromise his beliefs, and so in March 1880 he resigned the Clewer benefice. He wrote: `I cannot allow myself to take advantage of your Lordship's forbearance while continuing to act contrary' to your strongly expressed desire; and this is in the face of a not undivided parish. I am therefore constrained, as my only alternative... to place the resignation of my cure in your Lordship's hands...'

As soon as news broke in the parish there was a general outcry, and those present at the Easter Vestry requested the Churchwardens to urge the bishop to take no irrevocable step until a public meeting had been held. But when it was held the public meeting was not without a dissenting voice. Mr Cripps of Clewer Green heckled the speakers and was met with boos, hisses, groans, laughter and cries of `sit down.' Two letters of protest were read out, one being from Edmund Foster, the second complainant, objecting to any attempt to persuade Carter to stay. Notwithstanding these minor protests, the meeting passed a resolution that a memorial should be sent to both Carter and the bishop urging the status quo.

In a letter to the Churchwardens dated April 12th 1880, Bishop Mackarness replied: `Let me ask you to assure your neighbours that I fully recognise the zeal and devotion which have marked the whole course of your Rector's Ministry, though there have been some comparatively recent changes in the conduct of the services of the Church of which I did not approve... I am truly sorry that your parish should lose the services of a Pastor who has so well deserved your affection, but I am unable to see any grounds for refusing to accept his resignation or for supposing that he would wish me to do so.'

Carter himself replied to the Churchwardens in the following terms: `Nothing can be more valued by me than the assurance... of the feelings entertained towards me by so large a body of the parishioners... The convictions under which I was led to take this step continue to weigh with me as at the first... No wish to shrink from responsibility, still less any want of earnest care for the welfare of the parish, influenced me. But a complication of circumstances had arisen,... in consequence of which I could not, as I believed, conscientiously continue in the position which I had so long occupied.'

And so all that remained was the formality of leaving. A crowded meeting of well-wishers squeezed into St Katherine's Infant School, and there Carter was presented with an illuminated address containing the names of the subscribers to his parting gift, a `handsome clock' which is now in the care of the Community of St John Baptist. It is still in working order, and yes it will be going with them to Begbroke. Whilst the self styled `senior inhabitants', the Fosters, the Goochs, the Barrys and the Bulkeleys congratulated themselves on the ousting of their aged and ailing pastor, the poor gave their pence to this parting gift.

Carter's persecution by the self styled `senior inhabitants' is sadly ironic for, in the wider Church where he had much influence, his one aim had been to promote peace, reconciliation and common sense with regard to liturgy and ritual. In the midst of the growing ritualist controversies he found a role as a conciliator, being a Vice-President of the English Church Union from its early days. And in 1875, when his own troubles were accelerating, he formulated the six most important requirements for ritual in an attempt to curb some of the more eccentric practices.

As a pioneer of the retreat movement he had endeavoured to deepen the spiritual life of the Church. He wrote many books, the most popular of which was The Treasury of Devotion (1869), and which is still in print. His role as Warden at the House of Mercy had deepened his awareness of the value of sacramental confession, leading to one of his major works, The Doctrine of Confession in the Church of England (1865). In 1878 he became Master of the influential Society of the Holy Cross during the controversy surrounding confession. From the beginning of his ministry he had held a high doctrine of the Eucharist and of the priesthood. As early as 1857 he had published The Doctrine of the Priesthood in the Church of England. In 1862 he had founded the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and remained its Superior General until 1897; this society still exists. In 1870 Bishop Mackarness made him an Honorary Canon of Christ Church Oxford, and in the same year Carter published The Holy Eucharist, Spiritual Instructions. This then was the man whom the self styled `senior inhabitants' took it upon themselves to harrass and persecute with such consummate viciousness - a man whose stature the bishop so respected as to defend him in the highest Court in the land.

The sadness of leaving his beloved parish was offset slightly because Carter did not move far away, indeed he did not leave Clewer at all. He now took up full time duty as Warden of the Community of St John Baptist with the support of the Bishop. Having resigned as Rector he was now homeless and so a house was built for him by public subscription. This was St John's Lodge, built opposite the Convent in Hatch Lane, and it remained the Warden's residence until its demolition in 1963. By the time of Carter's resignation there had been considerable changes at the House of Mercy. Mother Harriet had resigned as Superior due to failing health in 1875, and had retired to Folkestone close to other Community work. She died there in 1883. The work of the Sisters had grown, and in addition to moral rescue work now encompassed orphanages, schools, parish work, and hospitals in over 40 branch houses, plus work in America and India. When Mother Harriet died in 1883 there were 201 Sisters excluding those overseas, and by the time of Carter's death in 1901 there were 274 Sisters plus 39 in America.

Throughout all Carter's troubles the Sisters had resolutely stood by him. And they too had come under attack from the Church Association, but Bishop Mackarness had written: `The day will come when it will be better to have had a share, be it never so small, in their quiet works of mercy and charity, than to have written volumes of controversy, or to have spent (or made) fortunes in litigious strife.' Carter had mourned the loss of his friend Mother Harriet in 1883, just as seven years previously he had struggled to come to terms with her retirement. `A more happy association of characters can hardly be imagined,' he had written. Together they had embarked upon a mighty work. That work over almost 150 years has undergone many changes and is now numerically diminished. But it lives on, and now looks forward bravely to new life at Begbroke.

Carter's daughter Jane, records in her biography of her father how Carter and Dr Julius met for the first time at a house on Clewer Hill. Julius was charmed by him and expressed regret at having commenced litigation. The two men shook hands and parted as friends. In 1887 a relative of Julius, possibly his daughter, was admitted as a Clewer Sister where she was known as Sr Mary Isabel. She was professed in 1889 and in 1890 went to India where she served until 1894. She died on March 3rd 1898.

The ceremonial practices which gave rise to the original protest might seem trivial now and are commonplace in most Anglican churches today. That is the result of the religious liberty won by men such as Carter. But the Public Worship Regulation Act remained on Statute Book until l962 although it was in reality a dead letter by the turn of the century. Perhaps the real hero of the Clewer case is Bishop Mackarness who took his pastoral role so seriously that he was prepared to go (and went) to the highest court in the land in defence of an aged and ailing priest even though he disagreed on the points originally at issue.

Carter spent the remaining years of his life ministering to the Community of St John Baptist, visiting their many branch houses and celebrating the Eucharist. In 1891 he was seriously ill but recovered, and whilst increasingly frail, lived another decade. Even so, he maintained an interest in the wider Church where he was greatly respected. As late as 1898 he addressed a meeting of clergy in London on the limits of ritual. Two days before his death he was present at the Community Chapter which re-elected Mother Betha as Superior. Next day he felt poorly and retired to bed; the following day, October 28th 1901 he died peacefully, aged 93 years. His body, clad in vestments, the wearing of which had cost him so much, was laid at St John's Lodge for two days, during which time many came to pay their last respects. At 8.00 p.m. on the eve of the funeral his body was brought into the chapel of the House of Mercy and a vigil of prayer was kept all night by relays of Sisters. The funeral took place next day, the eve of All Saints. There was a solemn Requiem at the House of Mercy, the celebrant being his nephew William Carter, Bishop of Zululand. He was buried in Clewer churchyard alongside his wife who had died in 1869. The funeral procession from the House of Mercy to the graveside was a quarter of a mile long with 100 clergy and 150 Sisters.

Carter had outlived most of his detractors although one critic who watched the cortege described it as `Popish Mummery.' But his obituarists wrote of his quiet dignity, and his deep spirituality. The ultra-Protestant journal Truth described him as a saintly man, and the obituary writer in the Daily Telegraph called him, `the last Tractarian'. A saintly man indeed, and one whom the Church has now recognised as such. His name has just been added to the revised Oxford Diocesan Calendar when his Commemoration will henceforth be kept at the end of October. Mother Harriet too is now commemorated on March 26th in the new Common Worship Calendar.

For all Carter's wider associations he was at heart a parish priest ministering to the people of Clewer and to the House of Mercy. His greatness lay in his simplicity, his humility, and his kindness. Though he found himself embroiled in controversy he was above all a conciliator, a reconciler. He stood as a bridge between the older generation of Oxford Tractarians amongst whom he had studied as a young man, and the new rising generation of ritualist clergy trained in the new theological colleges and willing to push the law to the limits. Though dubbed a ritualist by his detractors, Carter was not of that ilk. His alabaster memorial in the Convent chapel, designed by G F Bodley and completed in 1903, shows Carter robed in lace alb and Eucharistic vestments. Those same vestments are still in the care of the Sisters. But for all the messages of ritualism sent out by that exquisitely carved memorial, Carter was a simple parish priest. So perhaps the most characteristic pose of all is the one here in this his parish church of St Andrew, Clewer. Up there above the chancel arch he kneels in prayer worshipping his Lord along with St Andrew, St Agnes, Bernard Brocas and all who have found Christ in this place.

`The Community of St John Baptist, Clewer;

Pusey House, Oxford;

The Department of Western MSS, Bodleian Library;

St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden;

Mr Norman Phillips, New DNB.

Return to the Clewer Village home page.

This Page last updated on 18th February 2002.

Web pages prepared with: