5 



decision rested with the Chancellor and the consent of the Bishop 

 was a mere formality. The increasing archaeological spirit among the 

 clergy would welcome such action as was proposed. 



Mr. Garraway Rice, speaking as a member of the Committee 

 referred to, said he knew of a case of a porch being altered without 

 either a faculty or the services of an architect, and without the Com- 

 mittee in question being appealed to. The work was done by a 

 builder under the direction of the vicar, and the Bishop opened the 

 new porch and highly approved of the work. He thought that in all 

 such cases a faculty ought to be applied for. 



Prince Frederick Duleep Singh (Suffolk) said that in East Anglia 

 he had been struggling lor many years to gel some Committee 

 appointed, to which the clergy might be willing to submit schemes 

 for restoration. He had found that the Society for the Protection of 

 Ancient Buildings,iwhen appealed to, preferred not to interfere locally, 

 when there was any local body that could take the matter up. The 

 proposed scheme would supply the very thing that was wanted. 



Mr. Nevill thought that the scheme wanted modification in one 

 point. There would probably be no difficulty in the case of large 

 Societies, but some Societies were very small and might consist of 

 one, or of very few energetic people. There would also be a difficulty 

 when a member of the Committee was also the local architect. 

 Rather than that the local Society should appoint the Committee, he 

 proposed the appointment of an advisory Committee, in the election 

 of which the local Archaeological Society should be consulted. He 

 pointed out that great tact would be required and that all would depend 

 on how the Bishops were approached. 



The President said the matter was a very delicate one. There 

 was nothing the clergy, the Chancellor, or the Bishop more resented 

 than interference by someone outside the diocese. He doubted with 

 Mr. Nevill whether some Societies would find a sufficient number of 

 persons able to advise ; it required very considerable experience. He 

 understood that it was proposed in connection with the Historical 

 Monuments Commission to set up a central advisory board in London, 

 which would perform the very function for which it was proposed that 

 these local Committees should be set up. If this came into being, the 

 local committees would still be of use ; they could refer to the central 

 body in London, and many minor matters could be dealt with by them 

 which need not be referred to headquarters. 



The Rev. A. D. Hill (Thoroton Society) said that very many 

 dioceses were making great efforts to raise funds for church restoration, 

 and if it could be made apparent that the adoption of some such scheme 

 as this would influence subscriptions, that would be in its favour. He 

 pointed out that a faculty has to be submitted to the parishioners, 

 who therefore have the matter in their own hands. 



