The vicar and churchwardens sought permission for the sale by auction of two items of unused silverware worth in the region of £25,000, which had been donated to the church in 1735. The petitioners argued that there was a need for the silverware to be sold in order that the proceeds could be used to help fund a major re-ordering scheme that had received faculty approval. The church had had a small and declining congregation in 2001 but had over the last ten years made significant changes and was now growing steadily. The re-ordering scheme was part of the parish's plan for further development. The petition had the support of the archdeacon, a majority of the diocesan advisory committee (DAC) and the donor's family. The DAC's plate advisor and the Church Buildings Council strongly urged that the petition be dismissed, arguing that the pieces were fine and significant pieces that should be preserved. The petitioners argued that if the parish retained the pieces it would be necessary to expend sums that were not readily available on insuring and storing them securely.
The chancellor reviewed the law relating to the disposal of chattels, emphasising that there was no special category of ‘church treasures’ that warranted different treatment from other chattels. He referred to section 5 of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 and indicated that churchwardens and PCCs only have powers to acquire or deal with property for ecclesiastical purposes. He further concluded that the principal, and probably sole, justification for churchwardens or a PCC acquiring or owning movable property is either:
i For current use for ecclesiastical purposes, including in particular worship and mission; or
ii For possible future use for such purposes; or
iii As a form of investment, to be sold at some point in the future to fund the carrying out of such purposes.
The chancellor held that, where the only reason for holding an item was under the third category, that item should not be treated differently from any other investment. He acknowledged the appropriateness of a parish holding financial reserves against possible future expenditure but indicated that there was no particular justification for holding on to items ‘just in case’. The chancellor held that it is because churchwardens and PCCs are only entrusted with the ownership of chattels in so far as they are required for ecclesiastical purposes that the first matter to be considered in such cases is whether the item in question is redundant. Redundant items may, of course, be retained as an investment. The chancellor stated that parishes in general have a duty to care for, maintain and preserve items that they have inherited in the past, but that the Church was not founded to perform the role of guardian of art treasures for their own sake. In this case the items were redundant and therefore held as a form of investment. It was doubtful whether it would be an appropriate use of parish funds to improve the storage and insurance arrangements at the church to enable their retention; rather they should be sold to fulfil their intended ecclesiastical purposes. The proposed re-ordering scheme was just such a suitable purpose. The faculty was granted. [RA]
