1. Boyle, Leonard, ‘The Summa summarum and some other English Works of Canon Law’, in Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200–1400 (1981) XV, pp.415-16.
2. E.g., Davies, C., ‘A Reformation Dilemma’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39 (1988) p.63: ‘rusty and it was held in general disrepute’.
3. See also the pioneering article about the income of the clergy more generally: Kümin, Beat, ‘Parish finance and the early Tudor clergy’, in The Reformation of the Parishes, Pettegree, Andrew ed. (1993) p.44.
4. Squibb, G. D., Doctors’ Commons: a History of the College of Advocates and Doctors of Law (1977) is the principal study. Also valuable are: Coquilette, Daniel R., The Civilian Writers of Doctors' Commons, London (1988); Levack, Brian P., The Civil Lawyers in England 1603–1641 (1973); Senior, W., Doctors’ Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (1922); Logan, F. Donald, ‘Doctors' Commons in the Early Sixteenth Century: a Society of Many Talents’, Historical Research 61 (1988) pp.151–65.
5. This can be appreciated by reading a valuable review essay, which is almost totally devoid of treatment of legal practice: Allmand, C. T., ‘The Civil Lawyers’, in Profession, Vocation, and Culture in Later Medieval England, Clough, Cecil H. ed. (1982) pp.155–80. Brundage, James A. has recently made a start; see his ‘The Bar of the Ely Consistory Court in the Fourteenth Century: Advocates, Proctors, and Others’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 49 (1992) pp.541-60. He reached the conclusion that in the late fourteenth century at least, ‘the lawyers and judges of the Ely consistory court constituted a well-defined and relatively prosperous upwardly mobile professional elite’.
6. ‘The role of the registrar in diocesan administration’, in Continuity and Change: Personnel and Administration of the Church in England 1500–1642 (1976) pp.77–94. There is also useful information to be found, albeit for a later period and for one court only, in Duncan, G. I. O., The High Court of Delegates (1971) pp. 190-96.
7. I agree entirely with the view on this point expressed in MacCulloch, Diarmaid, The Later Reformation in England 1547–1603 (1990) pp.6–7.
8. The story is well worked out by Houlbrooke, Ralph, ‘The Decline of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under the Tudors’, in Continuity & Change: Personnel and Administration of the Church in England 1500–1642, O'Day, Rosemary & Heal, Felicity eds. (1976) pp.239–57.
9. E.g., Ingram, Martin, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (1987) pp.12–15; Ritchie, Carson I. A., The Ecclesiastical Courts of York (1956) pp.62–64.
10. Levack, Brian P., ‘The English Civilians, 1500–1750,’ in Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America, Prest, Wilfrid ed. (1981) p. 109.
11. See Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation 1520–1570 (1979) p.28.
12. Conset, Henry, The Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (1685) Part VI §§3–6.
13. ‘William Colman's Precedent Book’, in Suffolk Record Office, Bury St. Edmund's, MS.E 14/11/2, no. 129 (early 17th century).
14. Taken from Act book B/C/2/1, Jt. Record Office, Lichfield, , and Neve, John Le, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541, Coventry & Lichfield Diocese, B. Jones comp. (1964) p.3.
15. Hampshire Record Office, Winchester, Act books C 2/2 (1526–30) and C 2/3/1 (1541–49). He was not the sole judge, however. Edmund Steward also acted as official principal.
16. ibid. The other proctor, John Southwood, seems to drop out in the Act book during the course of the 1520s.
17. See, e.g., Kitching, Christopher, ‘The Prerogative Court of Canterbury from Warham to Whitgift’, above note 8, pp. 191–213.
18. See, e.g., Brown, Sandra, The Medieval Courts of the York Minster Peculiar (York 1984) 29 and, more generally, the discussion in Barber, Paul, ‘What is a Peculiar’ (1995) 3 Ecc.L.J. pp.299–312.
19. Precontracts and Degrees of Consanguinity 1540, 32 Hen. 8 c.38; Restoration of Jurisdiction to the Crown 1558–59, 1 Eliz. 1 c. 1 § 3.
21. The standard edition is The Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws, Cardwell, E. ed. (1850); it has recently been translated in Spalding, James C., The Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England, 1552 (1992).
22. E.g., 23 Hen. 8 c. 9, enacting that no person should be cited out of the diocese where he lived at the time of citation was interpreted by the civilians to authorise appointment of someone within a diocese to receive process in the name of the person cited, despite the person's absence from the diocese.
23. They were John Rokebye and George Palmer. Taken from the headings of consistories in act books, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York, Cons.AB.14, Cons. AB.18, Cons. AB.21, and Cons.AB.22.
24. He acted initially as official to the archdeacon of Canterbury; see Woodcock, Brian, Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the diocese of Canterbury (1952) p. 120. For appearances in the commissary courts, see Canterbury Cathedral Library, Act book Y.2.16, f.72 (1547) and Act book Y.2.19, f. 105 (1559).
25. They were Richard Farley, Reginard Beysley and William Turnbull.
26. They were Thomas Standevin, John Todde, Christopher Beisley, John Wright and John Shellito.
27. They were John Dornell and Roger Lewes. Taken from Hereford County Record Office, Hereford, Act books 1/6 and 1/7; there is a lacuna for the years 1538–52.
28. Taken from Hampshire Record Office, Winchester, Act books C2/3/1, C2/4 and C2/5.
29. Besides the examples given below, see Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church Courts and the People, above note 12, p.26, with references to ‘long serving chancellors at York, Chester, Chichester, and Gloucester’, to which he adds Miles Spencer, also archdeacon of Sudbury, who served as official at Norwich from 1531 to 1570.
30. See Fasti 1541–1857, York Diocese, p. 13.
31. Fasti 1541–1857, Canterbury, Rochester and Winchester Dioceses, p.15.
33. Fasti 1541–1857, Salisbury Diocese p. 18, stating merely that he had been deprived by 1564.
34. Fasti 1541–1857, Canterbury, Rochester and Winchester Dioceses, p. 104.
35. The two continuing were John Pottinger and Gilbert Mather; the three who had died were Nicholas Hooker (or Hocker), Robert Raynold and John Lichfield; the deprived cleric was Nicholas Harpsfield, who had become archdeacon of Canterbury in 1554. Taken from act books listed above in note 28. For Harpsfield, see Fasti 1541–1857, Canterbury, Rochester and Winchester Dioceses, p. 15.
36. They were Michael Brown and Simon Beare. Taken from Devon County Record Office, Exeter, Act books, Chanter MSS. 778 and 779. The disappearance of the act books from the twenty-five year period before 1560 prevents description of what happened to the other four men.
37. Taken from Joint Record Office, Lichfield, Act books B/C/2/4 and B/C/2/5.
38. See the judicious comments in Smith, Lacey Baldwin, Tudor Prelates and Politics 1536–1558 (1953) pp. 44–47.
39. The Reformation and the English People (1984) p. 162.
40. E.g., Decretum Gratiani Dist. 63 c. 12; Dist. 62 c. 2.
41. E.g., Panormitanus, , Commentaria in libros decretalium (1617) ad X 1.6.2 (Osius), no. 4, dealing with episcopal elections and stating the standard canonical rule against lay participation; Joannes Bertachinus, Repertorium (1590) tit. Blasphemia, dealing with the definition of blasphemy and rejecting the argument that custom among the people could legitimize otherwise blasphemous language; Mascardus, Josephus, Conclusiones omnium probationum (1593), Lib. II. Concl. 749, detailing the safeguards against allowing public opinion to constitute proof in the ius commune.
42. For what follows, see Friedberg, Emil, De finium inter ecclesiam et civitatem regundorum judicio (1861) pp. 87–154; Eichmann, Eduard, Der recursus ab abusu nach deutschem Recht (1903); Poudret, Jean-François, ‘Un concordat entre Amédée et le clergé Savoie au sujet des compétences des cours d'Église et des censures eccclésiastiques,” in Mélanges offertes à Jean Dauvillier (1979) pp.655-75; Blanco, Antonio Martínez, Introducción al derecho canónico (1991) pp.139-46.
43. For a contemporary example, see Francisco Salgado de Somoza (d. 1664), Tractatus de regia potestate (Lyons 1647), Pt. 1, c. 1, prae. 1, no. 56.
44. I have tried to describe the various forms of this literature in Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (1990) pp. 121-57.
45. The origins and a full description of this development remain to be worked out; for a general description see Clarke, Francis, Praxis in foro ecclesicastico (Dublin 1666) tits. 92–93.
46. Marchant, Ronald A., The Church under the Law: Justice Administration and Discipline in the Diocese of York 1560–1640 (1969) pp.229-30; Roman Canon Law in Reformation England, above note 44, pp. 104-17.