LAST NOVEMBER the Dean and Chapter of Hereford Cathedral announced their intention to put up for auction the finest surviving thirteenth-century mappa mundi, the Hereford world map, to help to raise a seven-million pound endowment to ensure the future of the cathedral and its activities. Having been on show for four months in the winter of 1987-88 at the Royal Academy's Age of Chivalry exhibition, where it was admired by tens of thousands of visitors as one of England's greatest medieval riarities, the parchment map had returned home for scarcely twice that time before the authorities declared their decision to sell it - an object which has been in the cathedral precincts continuously for seven hundred years. Supporting the chapter's decision, the Bishop of Hereford announced that the Cathedral was 'a living part of the Church and not a museum'. At the time of writing it is not known whether the sale will go ahead: the map has not been withdrawn from auction, but it is believed that some kind of rescue package may be in the offing, which could result both in money being provided for the cathedral, and the map remaining in this country - whether at Hereford or not. It could be argued that by failing to live up to its responsibility for this great object, and by treating it as gambling chip in its search for funds, the Hereford chapter has forfeited its right to keep the map, which might be better housed in the British Library; but seven centuries of history should count for more than the momentary aberration of a temporary custodian.

If the 'national heritage' means anything at all, the Hereford world map must surely stand as a paradigm for it: yet none of the structures set up to protect that 'heritage' seems sufficient to prevent the threat of its sale - or indeed to alleviate the problems that led up to so desperate a solution. The only positive aspect of this story is the attention it has focused on the loopholes and lacunae in the present arrangements for conserving the property, both movable and immovable, of the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been prompted by the episode to call both for 'a cathedral fabric commission, whose approval would be required for the sale of treasures', and for 'a review of the partnership between church and state for the support of historic buildings'. Although the sale of church treasures and the conservation of church buildings are, strictly speaking, separate issues, they are linked together in a new 'Care of Cathedrals Measure' at present under consideration by the General Synod.

Church buildings in Britain have always been exempt from public planning legislation, from the machinery of listing buildings and requiring public consent for their alteration or demolition. Equally, until thirteen years ago, the Church of England neither asked for, nor received, public money for conservation either of buildings or of fittings. Cathedrals continue to be entirely responsible for their own buildings, and each chapter must raise the money it needs for conservation by its own efforts. Since 1976, however, parish churches have benefited from the Government's church grants scheme, whereby ?4-5m. per annum has been made available for the maintenance of church buildings. A small proportion of this (?250,000) is allocated to the conservation of monuments, stained glass and wall paintings, for which grants from private trust funds are also available, administered by the Council for the Care of Churches. The National Heritage Memorial Fund also gives some money for conservation or church fittings. It was recently announced by English Heritage that the Government is to give an extra £3m. per annum for aid to church conservation, but disappointment was expressed in its report that progress in extending statutory controls over church buildings had been so slow.

The intention now is that the Church of England should bring the standards, if not the mechanisms, of control of ecclesiastical buildings into line with those imposed by legislation on secular structures. The first of three measures planned to implement this, the 'Care of Cathedrals Measure' is now at revision stage (the General Synod has powers of legislation delegated by Parliament, and its measures under- go stages analogous to those of legislation in the Houses of Parliament). It is hoped that the revised measure will be passed by November 1989 and receive Royal assent by early 1990.

The measure as currently drafted calls for statutory powers to be given to a new Cathedrals Fabric Commission. Permanent alterations to the fabric of cathedrals would in every case require application to the new body, the decisions of which would be legally binding. Although disposal of objects 'of architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic interest' would come within the Commission's jurisdiction, the present draft measure would not require automatic application to the national Commission for permission to sell (although authorisation would be required from the local Fabric Advisory Committee). However, an amendment to this effect was proposed at the last Synod, and the Hereford map affair has brought a certain urgency to the re-drafting. The revision committee is discussing a possible clause requiring automatic referral when objects of national importance are considered for sale; these could, perhaps, be so defined by starring items in the inventories that the measure would require cathedrals to compile.

To have such mechanisms in place would go some - but not all - of the way to averting irresponsible sales by cathedrals. But their efficacy will depend on what criteria the Commission employs in making its decisions. In the case of parish churches the present procedures - referral to the Diocesan Chancellor and final appeal to the Court of Arches - have by no means always prevented sales, which are allowed if it is deemed that money can be raised in no other way. This is indeed what has been claimed at Hereford - although the figures are not altogether convincing. It is, however, undeniably true that Cathedrals vary greatly in their ability to raise funds, according to the size of the diocese, distance from tourist routes, and so on. An independent central fund for cathedral restorations would be the most sensible and flexible way of assisting the hard-pressed. Nor, since statutory controls are now on the agenda, does there seem any good reason why public money should not be made available for this purpose.