The Hon. Secretary then read letters from the Bristol and Gloucester- 

 shire, the Derbyshire and the Somersetshire Archaeological Societies 

 approving the action of the Congress of June '27th and expressing their 

 opinion that disused ecclesiastical buildings should be included in the Bill. 

 Other letters were also read. 



The President returned the thanks of the Congress to Dr. Martin for his 

 evidence and his clear statement and invited discussion on the question of 

 the extension of the Act to ecclesiastical buildings in use. 



Mr. Aymer Vallance, F.S.A. (Kent), proposed, and Mr. P. M. Johnston, 

 F.S.A. (Surrey), seconded : 



" That this meeting of the Archaeological Congress, being desirous 

 that the protection afforded by the Ancient Monuments Consoli- 

 dation and Amendment Bill should be extended to ecclesiastical 

 buildings if the same can be done without unduly infringing the 

 existing rights or privileges of the Church of England or 

 Scotland or other religious body, will welcome and support any 

 scheme by which this can be carried out." 



Mr. Vallance read a list of conspicuous examples of injury to Church 

 buildings in the past and it was agreed that this list and those prepared by 

 other members should be handed in to the Hon. Secretary to be placed at 

 the service of the Committee. 



Mr. Johnston in seconding, stated that it had unfortunately been proved 

 only too fully that Bishops and Archdeacons were neither sufficiently careful 

 nor competent guardians of their archaeological treasures. Sometimes 

 mischief was done with a faculty, sometimes without, and the nominal 

 necessity of procuring a faculty had proved an illusory protection. He 

 pointed out the continual danger that arose from the practice of removing 

 from the Churches to the Vicarages objects of interest not in actual use. 

 Too frequently these were forgotten and never restored. 



The Kev, G. M. Livett, F.S.A. (Kent), stated that he was able to present 

 a resolution passed by the Kent Society in similar terms to those already 

 mentioned, but also earnestly deprecating any extension of the act to Church 

 buildings in use. He contended that the Societies intended by their 

 resolutions to express their disapproval of the extension of the Act to 

 ecclesiastical buildings in use. Pie had the strongest objection to any inter- 

 ference with the control of Church property by the Church, and stated that 

 any attempt to introduce Government control would arouse an opposition 

 which would be fatal to the Act. He concluded by moving an amendment 

 tion sert the words " not in use " after the word " buildings " in the Act. 



The amendment was seconded by the Rev. E. H. Goddard, M.A. (Wilts.) 



Mr. Paley Baildon, F.S.A. (Yorks.), stated that he differed entirely from 

 the mover of the Amendment, and he submitted that the time was evidently 

 ripe for some further protection to be given to church buildings. 



At present there was no wish to deal hardly with church control, but if 

 these extremely moderate proposals were refused, the church must be 

 prepared for the much more drastic measures that were in force elsewhere. 



The Presid(>nt, having to leave, was asked for his opinion and stated that 

 he agreed with Mr. Baildon that some measure of protection was imperatively 

 called for by pul)lic opinion and that the Church authorities would do well 

 to accept the friendly terms now olTered. 



