The enlargement of a Churchyard sometimes makes it necessary that graves
should be built over, or the bodies therein contained removed to another
part of the Churchyard, and it occasionally happens that the parties
interested object to the former but are prepared to agree to the latter.
It is well, therefore, to know that this removal can take place by
faculty granted by the ordinary for that purpose without application to
the Home Secretary (20 and 21 Vict., cap. 81, s. 25). When a Churchyard
is closed and a cemetery has been provided under a burial board to be
used for interments, the custody of the old registers belongs to the
Incumbent, and he is entitled to the fees for certificates of burial
previous to the closing of the Churchyard, but the custody of the
registers of interments in the cemetery belongs to the chaplain or
officer of the burial board. The Act 52 Geo. III., cap. 146, s. 4,
requiring certificates of burials in any other place than the Churchyard
of the Parish Church to be sent to the Incumbent, has been repealed as
far as burials are concerned in grounds provided by the Burial Acts (20
and 21 Vict., cap. 81, s. 15).
Then I wish that it were universally acknowledged that the next step
should be for a new Churchwarden to inspect the Church goods which are
placed under his charge; to see that they tally accurately with the list
which ought to be kept in the iron chest of all movable articles
belonging to the Church in that parish. {34a} If this were universally
done we should not hear, as we do now unfortunately hear from time to
time, of Church goods having disappeared during a vacancy, or of
registers being missing which may be absolutely invaluable. Legally
speaking, the safe custody of the furniture of the Church rests upon the
Churchwardens. {34b} This list should be signed by the Incumbent and
Churchwardens, and kept in the parish chest, and include all movable
articles of Church furniture and belongings.
There should also be a report on the fabric of the Church, mentioning the
character, date, and cost of alterations made, the date of consecration;
if a modern Church the Act under which built. Any specially
characteristic features of the Church should be mentioned.
The inventory of Church furniture should include Church plate, with
copies of inscriptions and dates, Church linen, Service books of all
kinds, furniture of the vestry, ornaments for the Holy Table, special
gifts, brasses, lectern, everything in short that is moveable, the bells,
with inscriptions, if any, and the rules for ringers, the parish register
books, with dates carefully made of the first entry in each book. If
there are any gaps in the registers it is well to mention them.
Benefactions should be noted; also the nature of the tenure of the parish
school, with an intimation as to where the trust deed is kept. A terrier
of glebe lands, with any exchange noted, should be made. There should be
a table of the customary fees charged, {35} and of any payments due to
the Ecclesiastical Commission or to Queen Anne's Bounty, with the amount
of any receipts due from any public body. It is clear that the more
complete such a list can be made the more valuable will it be for future
generations.
It would also be very useful to keep in connection with this inventory a
complete list of the various services held, with the amount of the
offertories and the purposes to which they are devoted.
Then with regard to insurance of the fabric. It is most important that
this should be looked into. There is no excuse for any Church to remain
uninsured. The premium for insurance is now fixed at such a low rate
that the expense is really very small, and the Churchwardens should do
all in their power to persuade the Vestry, if persuasion is necessary, to
sanction the insurance of the Church for a proper sum. I have sometimes
found, after making enquiries on the subject and having ascertained
either that the Church was not insured, or, if insured, only for a very
small sum, that the churchwardens always supposed it was "all right."
Very seldom have any held back from doing their duty when it has been
quietly pointed out to them. An Ecclesiastical Buildings Fire Office has
been established on a sound basis, the offices of which are in Norfolk
Street, Strand, London. It is doing a very large business, and whatever
surplus profits accrue are appropriated to the support of Church work in
the various Dioceses in proportion to the amount of insurances in each,
and to such special objects as are recommended by the Bishop and
Archdeacons. I may also mention Mutual Fire Insurance Offices, such as
the Hand-in-Hand (New Bridge Street, London, E.C.) and the County Fire
(Regent Street), which are old-established offices, and which
periodically return to insurers a certain amount of the premiums paid on
their policies in cases in which no fire has taken place during the
preceding few years. Of this I am quite certain, that if an uninsured
Church were unfortunately burned down, those in the parish interested in
the erection of a new Church would have the greatest possible difficulty
in raising the necessary funds, in the face of such a manifest want of
due caution and forethought on the part of the proper authorities in past
years.
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary for me to say that a strictly accurate
record of every sixpence that is spent upon these and such like matters
must be kept by the Churchwardens, so that at the close of their year,
when they pass on the parish books to their successors, they may be
enabled to lay before them a clear and detailed account of all the
receipts and expenses of the preceding year, with vouchers for all
payments, and to hand over the actual balance remaining after all
liabilities have been met.
It is often supposed that Church Rates are abolished. But such is not
the case. _Compulsory_ Church Rates are done away with by 31 and 32
Vict., cap. 109, except in cases where the rates have been legally
mortgaged, or are subject to private Acts of Parliament. Section 6,
however, of the above Act states distinctly that "this Act shall not
affect vestries, or the making, assessing, receiving, or otherwise
dealing with any Church Rate, save in so far as relates to the recovery
thereof"; and Section 9 authorises the appointment of trustees, the
Incumbent, and two householders or owners or occupiers of land in the
parish, to be nominated, one by the patron, the other by the Bishop of
the Diocese in which the parish is situate. These trustees form a body
corporate, and may, as circumstances require, pay to the Churchwardens
any funds in their hands for the building, rebuilding, enlargement, and
repair of any Church or Chapel, and any purpose to which, as before
defined in the Act, Church Rates may be applied.
Questions are so often put to me as to the relation existing between
district parishes and the mother Church, that it may be useful if a few
points are mentioned with respect to which difficulties occasionally
arise. The preliminaries of marriage and the solemnization of the rite
itself are a fruitful source of difficulty. They have however, as a
matter of fact, been set at rest by a decision in the Court of Queen's
Bench, in the case of Fuller _v._ Alford, before Mr. Justice Cave and Mr.
Justice Day, which affects all new parishes hitherto created, or that may
hereafter be created, under the Peel and Blandford Acts. The question at
issue was as to the right of the inhabitants of a district parish to have
their banns published and to be married in the Church of the mother
parish, and as to the right of the Incumbent of the mother parish to
publish the banns, solemnise the marriage, and receive the fees for the
same in the case of residents in the district parish. The case is fully
reported in the _Times_ of March 9th, 1883. Mr. Justice Cave, in giving
judgment for the Plaintiff, said that the Act of 1843 as well as that of
1856 (the words of the latter being clearer than those of the former)
made the district a new parish for all ecclesiastical purposes, and banns
of marriage might be published and marriages solemnized, and all the laws
and customs then relating to them would apply to the new parish, the
effect of which was that the banns must be published in the Church of the
new parish. Though recent legislation had brought into prominence the
civil character of the marriage contract, and had enabled it to be
entered into before a Registrar, still he had no doubt that the
solemnization of matrimony in a Church was within the words
"ecclesiastical purposes." The inhabitants therefore of a district
parish have no more right to have their banns asked or their marriage
solemnised in the mother Church than they have in any other Church in
England, so long as they reside in that district.
District parishes, it will be observed, are separate parishes _for
Ecclesiastical purposes_. These words affect the question as to the
right of the ratepaying parishioners of a new district voting for the
Churchwardens of the old parish. This they have a right to do on the
following ground:--The Churchwardens of an old parish have functions to
perform which are rather secular than ecclesiastical. They are in some
cases _ex-officio_ Overseers, and in many cases officially concerned in
the management of endowed charities. The creation therefore of a
district for ecclesiastical purposes does not deprive the inhabitants of
the new district of the right which they had before of voting for
Churchwardens in the old civil parish of which they continue to be
ratepayers. The ratepayers of the _whole_ of the old parish have
consequently a right to vote in vestry at the election of the
Churchwardens in the old parish. The privilege, however, is not
reciprocal, for the ratepayers in the old parish have no similar right of
attending at the vestry and voting for Churchwardens in the new district,
because they are elected "for ecclesiastical purposes" only.
It would be impossible to speak of the duties of Churchwardens without
touching upon the vexed questions of pews. I suppose that if we could
turn the hands of the clock back for some centuries, and were then
legislating for the future of the Church with our experience of the pew
system by a prophetic anachronism clearly present in our minds, we should
hardly suggest for legislation such laws as would bring about the
existing state of things. With the Epistle of St. James in our thoughts
there are some points in our present legal system which most persons find
it difficult to justify. But it is a thorny subject, and I do not want
to dogmatise. It is, perhaps, just the one very point with respect to
which great caution is needed, much charity, much forbearance. You
cannot ride rough-shod over old prejudices, or if you do you are sure
sooner or later to suffer for it. No doubt in theory (to use the words
of the Bishop of Carlisle) the Churchwardens, as the officers of the
ordinary, have, subject to him, the sole appointment and arrangement of
the seats. They are to act to the best of their judgment, and without
favour, to the best advantage of all. {43} And for the most part, in new
Churches, this arrangement works well. Either by agreement of the heads
of the parish the Church is declared to be in the popular sense of the
term "free and open," which is perhaps on the whole the best of all or
else by mutual forbearance and general co-operation an arrangement is
arrived at by which the worshippers in Church have from time to time
seats allotted to them.
It is not, however, in the case of new Churches that difficulties arise,
except when these new Churches take the place of old ones. Then it may
be that the old abuses of faculty pews and of supposed exclusive rights
in certain holdings have to be contended with. Cases have occurred where
supposed usurpers have been kept out of faculty pews when there is plenty
of room, or of locking up the pew when the so-called owner is absent.
Faculty pews are an anomaly, and I wish there were none, but if the title
to them can be proved they are legal and must be dealt with accordingly.
I do not imagine that any new faculties are now issued by the Courts, but
in the rebuilding of old Churches the dealing with existing faculties
requires very tender handling. It were heartily to be wished that all
legal holders of faculty pews would consent to waive their rights for the
future, for the sake of peace and the avoidance of jealousies. Of course
in such a case the Churchwardens would feel it an obligation which it
would be their pleasure to fulfil, to provide those who give up their
rights with such accommodation as their families may require. But if, as
is sometimes the case, they stand exclusively upon their rights,
Churchwardens have no power to abrogate the law, and can only look
forward to the future with hope, either that a short Act of Parliament
may be passed enacting that at the death of the present owner of a
faculty pew that particular faculty should cease, and determine, only
excepting (unless with the consent of the owner) cases in which under the
Church Building Acts the faculty was issued in consequence of money paid
down for the building of the Church with the understanding that the
faculty would be granted in consequence: or if this be not done that in
the lapse of time some holder of the faculty may regard the matter from
an unselfish standpoint and voluntarily resign his rights.
Meanwhile it is well to remember with regard to existing faculty pews
that:--
1. The form of appropriation in old faculties varies considerably. In
order to ascertain the wording of a particular faculty application should
be made to the Diocesan Registrar.
2. With regard to pews annexed by prescription to certain messuages the
right to the pew passes with the messuage, the tenant of which for the
time being has also _de jure_ for the time being the prescriptive right
to the pew. {46a}
3. No faculty can be legally granted entitling a non-parishioner to a
seat in the body of the Church. {46b} Any faculty so worded as to allow
this is void as far as that particular point is concerned.
4. No faculty gives power either to the owners and occupiers of the
house in respect of which the faculty has been issued to let such seats
apart from the houses, or to appropriate them to other persons.
No Churchwarden should ever allow a parishioner to repair the pew which
he may temporarily occupy. Such an act, if done with the sanction of the
Churchwardens, may in after years seem to give a claim to proprietorship
in that particular pew. Too great care cannot be taken to avoid any
future misunderstanding.
The matter is too often looked upon as a party question. The great Duke
of Wellington was no party man, and I cannot forbear from quoting in
connection with this subject an extract from a letter written to my
father, the Bishop of Winchester, in 1836, in response to an application
to him to support a Diocesan Church Building Society, which was then in
course of formation. The Duke writes concerning providing accommodation
in country Churches as follows:--
"It has frequently occurred to me that when Church room is required
the first thing to do is to prevail upon individuals to give up the
pews which they cannot use . . . If more space was required I should
propose that all pews should be given up, that the whole space of the
Church should be laid open for the accommodation of all the
parishioners indiscriminately, separate chairs of a cheap description
being provided for their accommodation. This being done, and space
being still required for the accommodation of the parishioners in
their attendance upon Divine Service, I would propose to consider the
mode of enlarging the Church, or if that could not be effected, of
building another Church or Chapel. It must never be forgotten that
another Church or Chapel would require the attendance of another
Clergyman, who must live and must be remunerated. He can be
remunerated only by the sale or hire of the pews and places in the
new place of Divine worship; and here again would commence the evil
which has in my opinion been the most efficient cause of the
non-attendance at Divine worship of the lower classes of the people
of this country." {48}
Surely these words, which (bearing in mind who was the writer of them)
cannot be supposed to have been the offspring of heated ecclesiastical
partisanship, are well worthy of consideration, even after the lapse of
more than half a century. It does, indeed, seem sad that parochial
difficulties should so often arise in respect of Church sittings. There
is no part of the parochial machinery which more requires the free
application of the oil of common sense--Christian charity and a true
spirit of forbearing courtesy in order to avoid friction. Blessed are
the peacemakers.
Difficulties not unfrequently arise in connection with the conveyance of
buildings or of land to be used not only for public worship, but also for
meetings, classes, etc. The subject was under the consideration of the
Committee of the Incorporated Church Building Society in 1889, and with
the co-operation of their legal advisers a statement was issued clearly
pointing out the advantages and the disadvantages of the several modes of
procedure possible. With the permission of the Church Building Society's
Committee, I add in Appendix X a summary of the conveniences and
inconveniences of the several Acts. The Minister and Churchwardens are
not a corporation with perpetual succession under the common law, though
often supposed so to be because they are specially so made for the
purpose of carrying out the Schools Sites' Acts. The advisers of the
Church Building Society on the whole recommend that a conveyance should
be made to individual Trustees, "which will be good according to the
ordinary law of mortmain as a charitable conveyance, the only real
objection to this being that if the conveyance be a gift, without price
paid, it will fail if the grantor dies within twelve months." A form of
such conveyance has been settled for the parish of Staines. This form
has been printed by the Church Building Society, but they recommend that
it should be amended by adding a power, to be used if a consecrated
Church is eventually built on the land, to revoke the trusts and convey
the land and building for the purpose of a Church to any person or body
lawfully authorised to accept such conveyance. If the Staines form is
not adopted, it is on the whole recommended that action should be taken
under 43 Geo. III, cap. 108. {50}
I pass on to another point. On a vacancy occurring in an incumbency
either through the resignation or death of the Incumbent, certain duties
of considerable importance devolve upon the Churchwardens. During the
vacancy they are in charge of the temporalities of the incumbency, and
therefore it is necessary that a sequestration of the living should be
issued, empowering them to do such things as are necessary in connection
therewith. Application should at once be made with reference to this to
the Bishop's Registrar. It is then their duty to see that Church
property, whether in connection with the fabric, endowment, or glebe,
suffers no loss during the vacancy. They have also to provide for the
services in Church and any occasional duty which may arise. A
newly-appointed Incumbent does not become legally responsible for this
until he has been instituted, or collated, as the case may be. But it
would be well always if the Churchwardens, immediately on an appointment
being notified to them, should communicate with the Incumbent-elect and
consult with him as to the best mode of providing for the duty. It is
well that Churchwardens should know that the license of a Curate does not
lapse in consequence of the death of the Incumbent. Six weeks' notice
within six months after institution is legally necessary if a change is
to be made. {52a} The widow of a deceased Incumbent has a right to
remain in the parsonage house for two calendar months subsequent to the
death of her husband. {52b} All these points should, if possible, be
made a matter of friendly arrangement, but the actual law of the case is
as I have stated it.
There is one question sometimes asked by Churchwardens to which it may be
well to refer. Have they the custody of the keys of the Church, the
appointment of the organist, control over the Church music, and over the
ringing of the Church bells?
With regard to the keys of the Church. It is the undoubted fact that the
church is the freehold of the Incumbent, subject, of course, to the right
of the parishioners to be present in it at all legal Services of a
religious character. It may be often convenient that the Churchwardens
should have a duplicate key of the Church, in order that they may be able
to fulfil their duties in connection with the survey of the fabric, or
for other causes, but this must be clearly understood to be subject to
the will of the Incumbent.
The same with regard to the musical portion of the Service or appointment
of the organist. Lord Stowell's words are:--
"The Minister has the right of directing the Service, _e.g._, when
the organ shall and shall not play, and when children shall chaunt
and shall not chaunt, though the organist is paid and the children
managed by the Churchwardens." {53}
Nothing can be clearer or stronger than this.
So too with regard to the Church bells. The Churchwardens have the
custody of the bells, and the bell ropes are in most cases Church
property placed under their charge, but the law with reference to the
ringing of the bells is undoubted; that for any occasion except that of
Divine Service the permission of the Incumbent is absolutely necessary
for the ringing of the bells. Without that permission they cannot be
rung. {54}
There is one further point on which a question sometimes arises in
connection with offertories and collections in church. With reference to
offertories gathered at the time of the celebration of Holy Communion at
an ordinary Service the Churchwardens and Incumbent are expressly
directed by the rubric to dispose of them to such pious and charitable
uses as they shall think fit, wherein if they disagree it shall be
disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint. The Incumbent has the
responsibility of arranging with reference to collections made not in
connection with the celebration of the Holy Communion. Incumbents are
thankful when the Churchwardens help them with their advice as to what
objects shall be brought before the congregation. In the case of all
collections, for whatsoever purpose they be made, it is most desirable
for the avoiding of any possible difficulty that a written statement
should be put upon the Church door on the Sunday after, stating the
amount of the collections made on the previous Sunday. If the collection
be made for any charitable or missionary society the official receipt for
the money collected and sent should also be affixed to the church door.
This leads me to mention another point of considerable importance. In
these days of monetary difficulties and agricultural depression the
frequency of offertories is often a question difficult of solution. It
is perhaps still more difficult wisely to decide the objects for which
the offertory shall be made. With regard to local objects there can of
course be no question. We recognise in these days the power of the
pence, and no one grumbles at the collection of money for purely
parochial purposes. But it is when our people are asked for money for
objects outside the parish that the difficulty really arises. But it
ought to be remembered that we do not lead individual isolated lives
apart from our fellows. The parish is not the centre of the universe.
The tendency of the uneducated mind is to isolate itself from the
interests of others, and to look at all matters from a purely selfish
point of view. The parish is an accidental collection of individual
souls in a particular diocese. The diocese is an aggregation of separate
parishes scattered through an assigned area. The members of the Church
in a particular parish and diocese are members of the Holy Catholic
Church, which by its very nomenclature abrogates individual isolation.
It follows, therefore, that parochial interests must not absorb attention
to the exclusion of larger and less personal objects. The Body is one,
and the members of the Body should work together for the good of the
whole. Corporate as well as individual life is a reality, and this fact
must not be lost sight of in connection with our offertories. I venture
to say that a parish which confines its offertories to local and
parochial purposes will lose by the very contraction of its sympathies.
The duty that lies upon us as trustees of God's gifts to utilize them for
His honour and glory, should be pointed out. The privilege of being
allowed to help with our substance, those who stand in need of our
assistance, should be duly urged; and the warmth which is thus kindled in
the heart towards others will react in infusing fresh life into the
support of parochial institutions. The habit of giving grows by use.
The blood must not stagnate round the heart, or the extremities will soon
suffer. Your fingers die because the action of the heart is weak. The
promise is that "He that watereth others shall be watered also himself."
I have no intention of entering into many details in this matter, but I
cannot be wrong in enforcing this principle. Church work at home and
abroad, as distinct from parochial organizations, should be
systematically brought before all congregations however small: Church
work at home, including home missions; and Church work abroad, including
foreign missionary societies.
Let me give very emphatically this caution. If aggrieved parishioners
come to a Churchwarden and endeavour to persuade him to join a cave of
Adullam, he should be careful not to be rash or hasty in his answer. He
must not take all for granted which heated partisans may allege, but
remember there are always two sides to every question. We are none of us
infallible in our judgment, and many matters after consultation with
others assume a very different aspect to that which at first sight they
seemed to present. If difficulties arise he must not threaten. It does
more harm than good. Let him try what conciliation will do. Let him see
whether common ground of action cannot be found. Certainly it is unwise
to rush into print; it only tends to inflame the smouldering embers of a
quarrel which, but for the unfortunate publicity given to it, might soon
have come to a happy termination.
Churchwardens _must_ work with the Clergy and the Clergy with the
Churchwardens if they are to be a blessing in the parish in which they
are elected to serve. They have not been brought by chance into
connection with the Incumbent of their parish, for chance is not a word
to be found in the Christian's dictionary.
With regard to all these cases, if difficulties arise in connection with
any of them it is seldom, if ever, wise to stand out for strict law. If
the matter cannot be settled amicably the interposition of the Rural Dean
or Archdeacon, or, as a final resort, the Bishop, will often smooth a
wrinkled brow and restore to a parish the inestimable blessing of peace.
It is because I feel the great importance and usefulness of the office of
a Churchwarden, that I have ventured, in accordance with the wish so
kindly expressed by those to whom the foregoing words were in substance
addressed, to publish them in this more permanent form; and I have only
to express the hope that they may be found useful in pointing out to
Churchwardens that their office, far from being a sinecure, may, if
faithfully used, tend very directly to the furtherance of our common
Master's cause, and that work done by them in a spirit of faith and love
will not lose its reward in the great Hereafter.