The church, which was situated in the Englefield estate, had been substantially rebuilt by Sir Gilbert Scott during the nineteenth century, including the installation of a baptismal font designed by Scott. Significant features from the original eleventh-century church remained. Sixty years prior to the application the original thirteenth-century font had been unearthed from a field and had since resided next to the Scott font in an overcrowded baptismal area in the south aisle. The petitioners wanted to replace the Scott font with the thirteenth-century font for reasons of architectural consistency with the older parts of the church. In addition there were concerns about the safety of the Scott font, as the plinth was both a trip hazard and too narrow for the baptising minister to stand on safely, particularly with older children or struggling toddlers. The proposal was opposed by the Victorian Society. A proposal for removing the Scott font to Englefield House, leaving photographs to illustrate where it had been located, was rejected. The issue was therefore whether there were grounds within the Bishopsgate questions to justify relocation of the Scott font within the church. The chancellor found that the plinth was a safety risk; therefore necessity justified the use of the thirteenth-century font in place of the Victorian one. Having two fonts in one baptismal area was also liturgically confusing and contravened House of Bishops' guidance that there should be only one baptismal font in a church. A faculty was granted for relocation of the Scott font to the north wall of the church, provided that photographs were taken to show where it had been located. The mediaeval font should be repaired for use in the baptismal area. [Catherine Shelley]