PARISH REGISTERS.—RIGHT OF SEARCH.
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.
G. Brindley Acworth.
12. King's Bench Walk, Temple.