£445 14s. 7d., the gift of Charles Walker, Esq., stand in the name of the Rev. Charles Kingsley and Mr. W. Druce. Thus supposing the first to be in safe trust, the two next are without any trustees, and the two last, in the name of one individual, which is not as it should be.
Again, Chamberlain’s Charity is for educating boys in the parochial school, and then apprenticing them; the Vestry elects the boys, and the parochial officers ought to do the rest, but the money is placed in the Savings’ Bank, and there we suppose it rests; there is a sum of money also lying at the parish bankers to the credit of the Chelsea charities, which we much suspect belongs to this charity, this sum has been lying unused for many years: it is also the duty of the parochial officers to see that the money paid for the benefit of the school children under Mr. Flood’s gift is properly applied: the treasurer of the schools cannot be expected to apprentice the children, so this money also finds its way into the Savings’ Bank. It is in these cases that the loss of the legal Vestry Clerk is felt, as from the nature of the present Vestry, and the limitation as to powers of interference with church matters, renders the assistance of the able Clerk of the Vestry, as now constituted, of no avail. The question also of the Church Trustees is in a very peculiar state; there is great uncertainty as to their powers. A most careful examination of the conflicting clauses of the Act creates great doubt as to whether the power of the Trustees to make a rate does actually expire at the present period, as is generally believed. If their powers of rating do expire, they will find themselves with an important trust to carry out without the means of performing their trust. We think it would tend much to the well-being of the parish generally if the Vestry, on Easter Tuesday, were to appoint a committee to inquire and report on the course it may be desirable to pursue with respect to the Church Trust. It must be the wish of everyone that the power to rate should cease absolutely, and that we should never again hear of a church rate in the parish of Chelsea. Possibly a short Act of Parliament, annulling the present Board of Trustees, and putting an end to the Act, would be the best mode of proceeding; thus leaving the Rector and Incumbent of the churches and the Church Officers to take charge of their own interests, taking the revenue of the church and making the best of it; the removal of the expense of the Board of Trustees, and a moderate contribution of the congregations towards the expense of what may be called church luxuries would meet the necessity of the case. Without great care and consideration this matter may become a troublesome and annoying parochial question. The old Rector has passed away, a new one has been appointed; let us not forget that, amidst the doctrinal disquisition and rubrical eccentricities of which we have heard so much, we have enjoyed, under the former, a quarter of a century of religious peace, and let us hope that the wise actions of the new one may tend to increase the affectionate feeling so many of us hold for the memory of his father and grandfather.
Saturday, April 14, 1860.
Though the name of Mr. Loveland is always spoken of with the greatest respect as the former vestry clerk of this parish, yet we by no means wish to infer the necessity of a legal gentleman filling that office. We believe that it could not be in better hands than it is, and we have felt it to be our duty, on more occasions than one, to express our warm approbation of the conduct of Mr. Lahee. Litigation will arise in every parish, and may be promoted to a very great extent by the appointment of attorneys, and even if it were not so they would get the credit and the obloquy, and therefore should not be placed in so unenviable a position.
Mr. Toulmin Smith says, ‘It may be safely stated, that it will be usually the wisest course not to appoint a person of the legal profession to the office of vestry clerk. It is quite unnecessary to the discharge of any of his duties that he should be of that profession; while his being so has a tendency to encourage a narrow technical mode of dealing with the duties of the parish, and very often indeed lead to litigation, for which there is no real occasion whatever.
‘Every parish should, however, have some known and confidential professional man of the neighbourhood, to whom it should refer on occasions needing professional action or advice.’
Again, in Brady and Mahon’s work on Parochial Law and Taxation it is said, ‘A custom has prevailed of late years of appointing attorneys as vestry clerks. The numberless statutes by which parochial affairs are now regulated, give something like a satisfaction to this practice, and the conflicting decision of the courts of law on parish cases, would lead to a belief that none but a lawyer could be qualified for the office. But whatever may be the cause, the fact appears to be unquestionable that such appointments have tended greatly to the increase of parochial expenditure; for the professional gentlemen thus selected as vestry clerks, however unjust it may be to attribute to them obliquity, foul play or evil designs very naturally carry with them into office a sort of esprit du corps which leads to appeals to quarter sessions, vexatious removals, litigious contests, journies half over the kingdom, the inevitable consequence of which is an enormous annual expenditure, amounting, it is said, to something like one third of the total poor rates!’
With such statements as these emanating from lawyers it would be absurd to argue for the continuance of a practice fraught with such imminent danger to the pockets of the parishioners.
APPENDIX No. 21.
CREMORNE GARDENS.
Report of the Committee of Works and for General Purposes.