In Vol. iv., p. 473. a Query on this subject is inserted, to which, in Vol.
v., p. 37., MR. CHADWICK replied.
The question, one of great importance to the genealogist, has recently been
the subject of judicial decision, in the case of Steele _v._ Williams,
reported in the 17th volume of the _Jurist_, p. 464. (the Number for
Saturday, 28th May).
At the opening of the argument, the Court of Exchequer decided that the
fees, &c. are regulated by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86., "An Act for
registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England," which in the 35th
section enacts--
"That every rector, vicar, curate, and every registrar, registering
officer, and secretary, who shall have the keeping, for the time being,
of any register book of births, deaths, or marriages, shall at all
reasonable times allow searches to be made of any register book in his
keeping, and shall give a copy, certified under his hand, of any entry
or entries in the same, on payment of the fee hereinafter mentioned;
that is to say, for every search extending over a period not more than
one year, the sum of 1s., and 6d. additional for every additional year;
and the sum of 2s. 6d. for every single certificate."
MR. CHADWICK seemed to consider this section only applied to "civil
registration;" but this view is, I apprehend, now quite untenable.
The case was, whether a parish clerk had a right to charge 2s. 6d., where
the party searching the register did not require "certified copies," but
only made his own extracts; _and it is decided he has no such right_.
Mr. Baron Parke in his judgment says:
"I think this payment was not voluntary, because the defendant" [the
parish clerk] "told the plaintiff, that if he did not pay him for
certificates, in all cases in which he wanted to make extracts, he
should not make a search at all. _I think the plaintiff had at all
events a right to make a search, and during that time make himself
master, as he best might, of the contents of the book, and could not be
prevented from so doing by the clerk_ in whose custody they were; who
in the present case insisted that if he wanted copies he must have
certificates with the signature of the incumbent. For the 1s. he paid,
the applicant had a right to look at all the names in one year. He had
no right to remain an unreasonable time looking at the book; nor
perhaps, strictly speaking, was the parish clerk bound to put it into
his hands at all: for the clerk has a right to superintend everything
done, and might fairly say to a man, 'Your hands are dirty: keep them
in your pockets.' The applicant could therefore only exercise his right
of search during a reasonable time, and make extracts that way. _If a
man insists on taking himself a copy of anything in the books, that
case is not provided for by the statute_: but if he requires a copy
certified by the clergyman, then he must pay an additional fee for it.
"It was consequently _an illegal act_ in the defendant to insist that
the plaintiff should pay 2s. 6d. for each entry in the book, of which
he might choose to make an extract," &c.
Mr. Baron Martin says:
"With respect to the statute, counsel (Mr. Robinson) says, because
taking extracts is not mentioned in the statute, it is competent for a
parish clerk to take an extra payment for allowing them to be made.
Where a man is allowed by statute to receive money, it is, as it were,
by virtue of a contract that the statute makes for him, and he cannot
make a contract for a different sum. The defendant here is bound by the
entirety of the statute; _he may be paid for a search_, OR _for a
certified copy_, BUT THERE IS NO INTERMEDIATE COURSE."
This decision will, I hope, have the effect of removing the difficulties so
often experienced in making searches for genealogical purposes. At all
events, the person making such search can now _safely_ make his own notes,
none daring _lawfully_ to make him afraid. I have to apologise for the
length of this letter.