View report page

23
OPINION.
I think that the following items, viz.:—Insurance of Oliurch and Chapel, Work
in the Church Ground, and Sexton's Salary, are now properly chargeable on the Burial
Board. As to the Insurance—this, by the Local Act, 2nd William IV., cap. 26,
Sec. 17, was made a charge on the "Mortuary money " therein mentioned, and therefore
by the 15 and 16 Vic., cap. 85, Sec. 26 (sic)*, it is one of the periodical liabilities
which the Burial Board, at the request of the Churchwardens may (and, I think,
must) pay. I think the Pew Bents are not liable. The Work in the Church Ground
seems to be provided for by the 18 and 19 Vic,, cap. 128, Sec. 18, and the Sexton's
Salary by the 15 and 16 Vic., cap. 85, Sec. 37. I do not think these items could be
included in the General Account of the Vestry.
I think that the repair of the bells is an item within the 31 and 32 Vic., cap. 109
not that the item is illegal, but that its presence in the accounts would render it
impossible to enforce the payment of a rate to defray the expenses set out in the
accounts. A distinction has most properly been drawn in the case between an item
which is in itself illegal and one which renders the rate incapable of enforcement.
I think that the repair of the church bells is an item that would before 1868 have
been properly chargeable upon a Church Bate, and therefore to be directly within the
interpretation clause. I think the ringing of the bells to be an item which the Vestry
may incur and charge to the Churchwardens' Rate under the 3rd section of the Local
Act, provided it is not preparatory to Divine Service. Winding up the church and
chapel clocks I think is also an item which the Vestry may deal with under that section,
and I think the same as to the clothes and house for the beadle. But I come to this
conclusion entirely from the 3rd section of the Local Act, which seems to give very
large powers to the Vestry as to charges which may be placed upon the Churchwardens'
Rate. I do not think that without this section the power of the Vestry to incur these
expenses would be by any means clear, and I cannot lecommend that anj- attempt
should be made to support the charges under any other statute, or to charge to any
other rate.
I have now only one question more to reply to, and that is as to the liability of
the Churchwardens to make good any damage to the Church, &c., by fire.
I do not think that the Churchwardens incur any personal liability in this respect.
There is no doubt that the Parishioners at Common Law would be liable to the charge,
but since the Statute of 1868, it is not ensy to gee how that liability could be enforced.
Mr. Prideaux's very able work, "The Churchwardens' Guide, p. 314 and 399, 12 Edit.,
1871, contains some suggestions on the point which seems to be the production of a
Mr. Swann ; I am not, however, at all prepared to say that they could in practice be
carried into effect.
FRANCIS BARROW,
Temple,
14th August, 1874.
*This should evidently be Sec. 36.