- 47 -
Due to the need to abide by legal requirements dating from an
earlier age the community involved were effectively denied the ability
to order their own affairs to their own desires - and no-one was a
beneficiary. (Incidentally, Professor French's article cites other
cases, and is well worth reading by anyone interested in this theme).
In what aspect then is the law being so tenacious - common or eccles-
iastical? If it be ecclesiastical then we must, for the purposes of
this study, accept it, and merely note that redundant buildings cannot
be expected to yield much benefit, but if it be common or statute law,
then by operation of the normal processes it can be amended, and we
might reasonably suggest steps in that direction. A situation in
which ecclesiastical law is much the same, but common law different
(and younger) obtains in North America, and the position seems to be
markedly different:
"... in Atlanta, Georgia, one church structure ... has
now become a luxury restaurant. ... one church has
been turned into a sail loft, another has been conver-
ted into a centre for the performing arts, [and] in
Montreal, St. Jacques Church ... is being converted
to university buildings"(P10)
The article makes no mention of serious legal obstacles and even
goes on to mention a church in New York where "the various religious
interests have succeeded in making the church both a religious and a
community centre, which all will share and which will be financed
jointly by the users"
(P10)
another move which entails legal difficulties
when it occurs in the Church of England.
Not that the Church of England is short of bright ideas for the
disposal of redundant churches once they become fully cleared of legal
hindrance. The Church Commissioners reported in 1976 that among pur-
poses to which redundant churches had been put were: Village Hall (1);
Hindu Community Centre(1); Residential (34); Storage (9); Museums or
