The Committee for the Preservation of S Leaonard’s Church held their 8th meeting on the 7th day of January in the year of our Lord 1884 in Bengeo Rectory at 5 p.m. ___
Present – The Revd W Wigram chairman, the Revd J.C.M. Mansel-Pleydell & Mr G Gosselin Sec.
1) The minutes of the last meeting 14 Nov 1883 were read & confirmed.
2) The Secretary produced Mr Micklethwaite’s certificate to Mr Ekins stating that there is due to him for works executed in the Church the sum of £341”11”6 – the Committee agreed that this bill should be discharged & authorised the Treasurer to give Mr Ekin’s cheque for the same – the Accounts of the Treasurer were certified by the Chairman.
3) The Secretary reported that Mr Micklethwaite came down to inspect the work at the Church on the 3rd January last – that he expressed himself as very well pleased with the way in which Mr Ekins had carried out his contract. – the words he used being “Mr Ekins has tried to show us how well this work can be done” = he also stated that he considered that the Charge of £10”11”6 above the contract was most moderate, taking into consideration the large piece of roofing which, owing to the previously unobserved and not calculated for crookedness of the Chancel had to be built – that crooked addition was a swim out of which many Contractors would have gotten much wealth to themselves: in the extras was also included the Clearing out and filling with stone and cement two large & dreadful cracks in the wall dividing the nave from the chancel that on the north side extending from the crown of the arch to the roof of the nave , the Southern one from the ground to the Chancel roof, both doubtless originally caused by the removal of the great tie beams of the nave roof some 40 years ago by one William Sheffield, since dead & buried.
High up in the wall, south of the Chancel arch in cutting a chase for the lead flushing were found 2 pieces of worked stone – one, part of a joint the other very indescribable the worked faces thereof being at such various angles to one another that it is difficult to guess at its use – also from the north side of the arch but near the top of the chancel roof we obtained a stone whose form is shown in the annexed sketch this Mr Wigram suggests may be part of the moulding of an arch , & sometimes aptly described as “bamboo” moulding – Mr Micklethaite is of the same opinion though in which part of the Church it may have been used we have no trace.
4/. Mr Micklethwaite’s letter was read in which he states that he has certified to Ekins for £341”11”6 upon which his commission at £5 percent is £17”1”6 his travelling expenses have been £2.1.0 which with the work done in the Church (i.e arranging the floor vault &c) before Ekin’s contract he thinks will be fairly covered by £20 – M״ Gosselin stated that this had been paid & the Committee certified the same & it was entered in the accounts as received & paid out =.
5/- The Committee then turned over in its mind the unsatisfactory state of the fate of the Church Yard it being very dislocated. The remains are very rotten – they are few – they are unhinged, and very much at the mercy of those who want fixing???? =. Advised – that as the Church Yard is a parish cemetery, wherein the parish ancestors lie that the parish as represented by its vestry should give somewhat towards the repair of the gate & fence _
6/. The Treasurer reported that the funds at the disposal of the Committee after paying Messrs Ekins & Micklethwaite were £31״12״6
4 March 1884 Confirmed W Wigram