We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
‘The word Visitatio … denotes that act or office of the bishop, or of some other ordinary, going his circuit throughout his diocese or other district, with a full power of inquiring into such matters as relate to the government and discipline of the Church, and sometimes of correcting abuses and punishing excesses committed by his subjects … Visitation, as we would use the word here, implies some act of jurisdiction and coercive authority …’
1. Ayliffe, , Parergon Juris Canonici Anglicani (London, 1734), p. 514.Google Scholar
2. Act of Uniformity 1558 (1 Eliz. 1, c. 2), s. 23.
3. R. v Bastwick, Burton & Prynn (1637), 3 Howell's St. Tr. 711 at 715Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, Appdx. pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
4. Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), cc, 60, 86, 109, 111, 113, 116–119, 137; Canons of the Church of England, C 18, para. 4, C 22, para. 5, G 5, para. 1.
5. Caudrey's Case (1591), 5 Co. Rep. 1a at 9a; Edes v Walter, Bishop of Oxford (1667), Vaugh. 18 at 21; Martin v Mackonochie (1868), L. R. 2 A. & E. 116 at 153Google Scholar; Mackonochie v Lord Penzance (1881), 6 App. Cas. 424 at 446Google Scholar; , Stillingfleet, Ecclesiastical Cases (London, 1698), pt. i, p. 373Google Scholar; Hale, , History of the Common Law of England (3rd ed., London, 1739), pp. 27–8Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani (2nd ed., Oxford, 1761), I, xxvii–xxviiiGoogle Scholar; Halsbury, , Laws of England (4th ed. London 1975), XIV, paras. 304, 306, pp. 139, 141Google Scholar. Canons of the Church of England, G 5 para. 1 expressly recognises and maintains the law and custom governing the conduct of visitations. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed. para 490) comment as to the status of the Roman canon law concerning visitations is misleading as it is based on a misunderstanding of the case of Philips v Bury (1694) as reported 1 Ld. Raym. 5 (a visitation of an eleemosynary, not a spiritual foundation - see later).
6. Any opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author and should not be taken as in any way reflecting or anticipating the views of the working party.
7. See Acts viii. 14, where the Church in Jerusalem attempts to keep control in Samaria: Hanson, , The Acts (Oxford, 1967), p. 108.Google Scholar
8. “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do”: Acts xv. 36.
9. See Stephens, John, An Historical Discourse, briefly setting forth the nature of Procurations (London, 1661), p. 5Google Scholar. St. Paul is represented as a visitor: Le Case de Proxies (1604), Davis 1 at 2; Stephens, op. cit., p. 45.
10. Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 146Google Scholar; Ayliffe, Parergon, pp. 57, 514Google Scholar. See: Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. (Citation of the Corpus Juris Canonici is in accordance with Bryson, , ed., Dictionary of Sigla and Abbreviations to and in Law Books before 1607 (Univ. of Virgina, 1975), pp. 19–20.)Google Scholar
11. Frere, , Visitation Articles and Injunctions (Alcuin Club XIV, London, 1910), 1Google Scholar, 9. See: Council of Antioch, A. D. 332, c. 24 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 5); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils and Synods (Oxford, 1964), p. 255).Google Scholar
12. The earliest appears to be c. 8 of the Council of Tarragona, A. D. 516, which already refers to the annual visitation of the bishop as an ancient practice: Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum Novael Amplis-sima Collectio (Venice & Florence, 1758–1798), VIII, cols 542–543Google Scholar (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10).
13. Decretum Grat., C. 12, q. 1, c. 14.
14. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 11.
15. Canon 1 (Decretum Grat.) C. 10, q. 1, c. 12).
16. The canons concerning visitations were becoming more widely known through collections such as those of Reginon of Prüm, A. D. 906 (Migne, , Patrologia Cursus Completus, series Latina (Paris, 1844–1895), CXXXII, col. 185)Google Scholar and Burchard of Worms, c. 1010 (Ibid.,, CXL, col. 537). See also: Pipin, , Capitulare Suessionense, A. D. 744Google Scholar, c. 4 (Ibid.,, XCVI, col. 1505); Cone. Germanicum, A. D. 743, c. 3 (Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XII, 366–367).Google Scholar
17. See Historia, BedeEcclesiastica, III, chs. 17, 23, 28 (ed. Plummer, , Oxford, 1896, I, 159, 174, 195).Google Scholar
18. Bede, , op. cit., IV, ch. 2 (ed. Plummer, I, 205).Google Scholar
19. See Ibid.,
20. Moberly, , Bede's, Historia Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1881), p. 397.Google Scholar
21. Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents (Oxford, 1871), III, 363–364.Google Scholar
22. Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 377–378Google Scholar. Although this letter is often regarded as the inspiration for the reforms of the Council of Clovesho, Haddon & Stubbs suggest (III, 382–383, n.) that the latter may have followed the Council rather than preceded it, and may indicate that the decrees of the English Church in this respect were adopted by the German Church rather than vice-versa.
23. Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 449–450.Google Scholar
24. Ibid., 111, 501.
25. Chapter 3: Wilkins, , Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London, 1737), I, 213.Google Scholar
26. By the jus commune. the diocesan synod was to be held annually (Extra, 5, 1, 25 (i. e. lib. 5, tit. De accusationibus (1), cap Sicut olim (25)) but by custom two synods a year were held in some English dioceses: see Cheney, , English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1941), p. 17.Google Scholar
27. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, I, 49.Google Scholar
28. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. l, cc. 4, 9, 10, 11; Gibson, , Of Visitations Parochial and General (London, 1717), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
29. A. D. 633, c. 35 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 11).
30. Letter of Isidore Hispalensis, dated c. A. D. 600 (Decretum Grat., D. 25. C. 1, § 11).
31. Council of Rouen, A. D. 650, c. 11: Reginon of Prüm, ii, c. 1 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII. col. 279–281Google Scholar): Burchard, i, c. 90 (Migne, , op. cit., CXL, col. 572Google Scholar); Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, X, col. 1203.Google Scholar
32. Letter of Pope Clemens II, c. 1046: Decretum Grat., D. 93, c. 6; Gratian, , Decret., comment, ad D. 94, pars iii.Google Scholar
33. Extra, 1, 23, 1 & 7.
34. Ibid.,
35. Extra, 1, 23, 1.
36. Extra, 23, 1 & 7.
37. John of Athon, Constitutiones Legatinae d. Othonis et d. Othoboni, (bound with Lyndwood, Provinciale, Oxford, 1679), Constits. Othoboni, c. 8, Quam indecorum, gl. ad verb, nunciare, p. 93.
38. Provinciale, seu Constitutiones Angliae (Oxford, 1679),Google Scholar lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, visitatione, p. 49, & gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.
39. Extra, 1, 23, 1 & 7; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53.
40. Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, A. D. 845, appointed ‘magistri et decani’ (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXV, cols. 777–778, para. 716Google Scholar), and c. 25 of the Council of Paris, A. D. 829, implies a plurality of archdeacons (Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XIV, 555Google Scholar).
41. See Neve, Le, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1066–1300) (Vols. I–III, London, 1968–1977).Google Scholar
42. Extra, 1, 23, 6. Undated, but must be 1159 X1181.
43. i e. a jurisdiction which is possessed by the holder of an office in his own right by virtue of the office and is not dependent on the grant of another: Hostiensis, Aurea Summa (Coloniae, 1612), I, de Offic. Ord., para. 1, col. 289; Coke, , Institutes of the Laws of England (6th. ed., London, 1681Google Scholar); Hargrave, ed. (Commentary upon Littleton) 19th ed., London, 1832), I, 96aGoogle Scholar; Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt, i, Bonds of Resig., pp. 63–64Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium Canonicum (3rd. ed., London, 1687), p. 23Google Scholar; Burn, , Ecclesiastical Law (9th ed., London, 1842), III, 39Google Scholar. See Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 3, c. 1, gl, ad verb, ordinarii, pp. 16–17.
44. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 96Google Scholar; , Gibson, Codex, II, 958, 970Google Scholar; Van Espen, , Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum (Louvain, 1753), I, pt. i, tit. 12, cap. 1, para. 6, p. 74Google Scholar; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age (Paris, 1880), p. xxx.Google Scholar
45. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit, 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50; Hostiensis, , In Primum - Sextum Decretalium Librum Commentaria (Venice, 1581), I, de Offic. Archid., cap. 10Google Scholar, para. 31, fo. 129 recto; Gibson, Codex, II, 969–970Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, pp. 96, 161.Google Scholar
46. Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. adverb, imperitiam, p. 50. See Justinian's Digest, lib. 2, tit. l. para. 2; Coke, , Institutes, 1, 96a.Google Scholar
47. Legatine Council of London, 1237 (Constits. Othonis), c. 20 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254).Google Scholar
48. Synodal Statutes for an English Diocese, 1222 X 1225, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148Google Scholar), attrib. Lynd. (lib. i, tit. 10, c. 4, p. 53) and Wilkins, (Concilia, II, 513)Google Scholar to Reynold's Constits., 1322, c. 6; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.
49. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17.
50. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, pp. 50–51; Ibid.,, c. 4, gl. ad verb, personis, p. 54.
51. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, quae corrigenda, p. 53. See: Extra, 2, 12, 4; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c, 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.
52. “For er the bisshop caughte hem with his hook, they weren in the erchedekenes book”: Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Friar's Tale”, ed. Robinson, F. N (2nd ed., London, 1957),. p. 89.Google Scholar
53. Extra, 3, 12, 1; Ibid.,, 5, 34, 10; Ibid.,, 5, 3, 31; Ibid.,, 5, 1, 17 & 21, confirmed by the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, c. 8, Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XXII, cols. 994–995Google Scholar (Extra, 5, 1, 24).
55. Athon, Constits. Othoboni, c. 8, Quam indecorum, gl. ad verb, inquisitionem, p. 93; Lyndwood, supra.
56. Cheney, & Semple, , Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England (1193–1216) (London, 1953), no. 23, p. 79.Google Scholar
57. Regesta Honorii Papae III (ed. Pressutti, , Rome, 1888–1895), no. 3891;Google ScholarCalendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters (ed. Bliss, , London, 1893), I, 86.Google Scholar
58. Registres de Greǵoire IX (ed. Auvray, , Paris, 1896–1908), no. 716Google Scholar (I, col. 448); Potthast, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin, 1874–1875)Google Scholar, no. 8947 (1, 768); Cal. Papal Reg., Letters, 1. 129Google Scholar; Annales Monastici (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 36), I, 243–244Google Scholar; Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 57), 111, 234.Google Scholar
59. Historia Anglicana (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 16), p. 117.Google Scholar
60. Canon 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar
61. Grosseteste, , Epistolae (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 25), no. 50, pp. 146–147Google Scholar; Annals of Dunstable (Ann. Mon., III, 147–148); Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 263–4.Google Scholar
62. Chronica Maj., IV, 579–580.Google Scholar
63. Chronica Maj., V, 256–257Google Scholar. See generally Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 261–265.Google Scholar
64. See the collections of canons for the practical administration of their dioceses compiled by Reginon, Abbot of Prüm (“De Eccles, Disc.”, Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 185Google Scholar) and Burchard, Bishop of Worms (“Decret.”, Migne, CXL, col. 537) in A. D. 906 and 1010 respectively.
65. Epistolae, no. 50, p. 146Google Scholar; Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 263Google Scholar (“rectoribus ecclesiarum, vicariis, et sacerdotibus parochialibus per singulos decanatus coram nobis congregatis”); Grosseteste's report to the Pope and cardinals, Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 265Google Scholar; Annals of Dunstable (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 264Google Scholar; Ann. Mon., III, 147–8Google Scholar).
66. Archbishop Boniface was supposed to have been inspired by Grosseteste's example when visiting his province in 1250: Paris, Matthew, Chron. Maj., V, 119, 195–196Google Scholar. The Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was similarly encouraged to visit his diocese in 1252: Ann. Mon., I, 296Google Scholar. Seeb Cheney, , Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries (Manchester, 1931), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
67. Sextos, 3, 20, 1.
68. Wake, , Visitation Charge (London, 1707), p. 6Google Scholar; Gibson, Visitations, p. 59.Google Scholar
69. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, videant, p. 50Google Scholar; Gibson, op. cit., p. 11.
70. Gibson, op. cit., p. 6. See: Council of Oxford, 1222, cc. 16, 29 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 110–111Google Scholar, 115, Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 587Google Scholar, 589, cc. 11, 24), and its diocesan derivatives, Stats, of Bishop Peter des Roches of Winchester, 1224?, c. 13 (ibid., p. 128), Stats of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X1259, c. 77 (Ibid.,, p. 649); Stats for an Eng. Diocese, 1222 X1225?, c. 52 (Ibid.,, p. 148), attrib to Constits. Reynold, c. 4, Sint rectores (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 512–513Google Scholar); c. 6, Archidiaconi et eorum (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 513Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (Powicke, & Cheney, , p. 254Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (Ibid., p. 768). See the prominence of the inventories of church goods maintained by the archdeacon of Ely in the Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis (ed. Feltoe, & Minns, , Camb. Antiq. Soc, 48, 1917), pp. 30–146.Google Scholar
71. Hamilton, Thompson, English Clergy and their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947), pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
72. “Porro visitationis officium exercentes non quaerant quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi, praedicationi et cohortationi, correctioni et reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit.” Extra, 3, 39, 23. See also Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, 1, 255).Google Scholar
73. Canons of the Church of England G 5, para. 1.
74. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 514.Google Scholar
75. See Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Salk. 134,1 Ld. Raym. 539.
76. Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 at 39Google Scholar; The Reconciliation Sentence & Service in St. Paul's (1891). 7 T. L. R. 276 at 277.Google Scholar
77. Decretum Grat., D. 93, c. 6; 1, 31, 1; Sextus, 1, 16, 7; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb. inquirere, p. 17; Conset, , Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts (3rd. ed., London, 1708), p. 379Google Scholar; Oughton, , Ordo Judiciorum (London, 1728), tit. cxxxviiv, p. 214.Google Scholar
78. Extra, supra; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quid ad, gl. ad verb, corrigenda, p. 56; Lyndwood, supra; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Salk. 134, 1 Ld. Raym. 539; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435 at 450.Google Scholar
79. Decretum Grat. C. 10, q. l, c. 12; Extra, 3, 39, 23; Extra, 5, 7, 13; Sextus, 3, 20, 1; Reginonof Prüm, I, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lot., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Athon, supra.
80. Lyndwood, supra.
81. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, quae corrigenda, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17; Ibid.,, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50. See: Stats, of Bishop Peter of Winchester, 1224, c. 18 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 128–129Google Scholar); Synodal Statutes for an English diocese, 1222 X 1225, c. 52 (ibid., p. 148); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (Ibid.,, p. 254); Statutes of the diocese of Norwich, 1240 X 1266?, c. 81 (Ibid.,, pp. 361–362); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (Ibid.,, pp. 768–769).
83. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 12; Council of Oxford, c. 29 [24] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 115Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (supra); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (supra); Council of Lambeth, 1281, cc. 9 & 10 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 900–907Google Scholar, partic. at p. 907; see also Lyndwood version, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 2, p. 51); Durandus, Speculum, III, pt. i. de lnq., para. 2, sec. 11 (II, 31); Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 137; Wake, , Visitation Charge, p. 6Google Scholar. Such inquiries are clearly evident in the records of visitations.
84. Extra, 5, 77, 9 & 13.
85. Extra, 1, 31, 1; Reginon of Prüm, I, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quid ad, gl. ad verb, corrigendo, p. 56. See e. g. Reg. Palatinum Dunelmense (ed. Hardy, , Rolls Series 62), I, 84–85.Google Scholar
86. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 5; Ibid.,, C. 35, q. 6, c. 7; Ibid.,, D. 93, c. 6; Reginon of Prüm, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Extra, 1, 31, 1; Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 4, gl. ad verb. personis, p. 54; Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), cc. 109–112. Notices of visitation were expressed to be of both clergy and people (e. g. Reg. Epist. Johannis Peckham (ed. Martin, Trice, Rolls Series, 62), II, 531Google Scholar; Reg. Corbridge (Surtees Soc.; 138, 1925), 1, 154), and the laity were included in commissions to visit (e. g. Reg. Pal. Dunelm., p. 115Google Scholar; Reg. Reynolds, f. 12 verso, quoted Churchill, , Canterbury Administration (London, 1933), I, 307).Google Scholar
87. Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952), p. 69.Google Scholar
88. Woodcock, supra. In the Archdeacon of London's court between 27 November, 1638 and 28 November, 1640, there were thirty sittings and 2500 causes entered; Holdsworth, , Hist. of Eng. Law (7th ed., London, revised 1956 (reprinted 1966) - 1972), I, 620.Google Scholar
89. See Marchant, , The Church Under the Law (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 116–117, 122–123, 136–137.Google Scholar
90. Church Discipline Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86), s. 23, repealed by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1), s. 69. This section, however, is badly drafted. It expressly refers to proceedings “in the consistory court of a diocese or in the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved”, unlike s. 23 of the Church Discipline Act which prohibited criminal suits against a clergyman “in any ecclesiastical court”. The visitation court is neither the consistory court of the diocese nor the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, and with the complete repeal of the former legislation (Ecclestical Jurisdiction Measure, 1963 S. 87, Sch. 5), on the face of it the visitatorial jurisdiction falls outside the scope of thecurrent Measure and the criminal jurisdiction is revived!
91. Phillimore v Machon (1876), 1 P. D. 481 at 487.Google Scholar
92. Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. at 40.Google Scholar
93. See Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts, 1951 (London, 1954), p. 51.Google Scholar
94. Sextus, 1, 16, 7; Hutchins v Denziloe and Loveland (1792), 1 Hag. Con. 170Google Scholar; Walter v Mountague (1836), 1 Curt. 253Google Scholar; Wyndham v Cole (1875). 1 P. D. 130.Google Scholar
95. Extravags. Stratford, 1342, c. 7. Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 699Google Scholar); Gibson, , Visitations, p. 51.Google Scholar
96. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 10, 11; Stats, for an Eng. dioc. 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148Google Scholar). See Simpson, Sparrow, Visitations of Churches belonging to St. Paul's, 1297 (Camden Soc. N. S., 55, 1895), p. xxivGoogle Scholar. Lyndwood (lib. iii, tit. 27, c. 3, gl. ad verb, viros fide dignos, p. 254Google Scholar) advised that such a survey should be conducted with the assistance of builders and skilled men.
97. Extravags. Stratford, supra; Anon. (1671), I Vent, 127; Degge, , Parson's Counsellor (6th ed.London, 1703), pt. i, p. 189Google Scholar; Simpson, Sparrow, op. cit., p. xxv.Google Scholar
98. Council of London, 1200, c. 5, Cum inter ea (Wilkins, , Concilia, I. 505–506Google Scholar); Council of Oxford, 1222, c. 16 [11] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. (110–111)Google Scholar; Consits. Reynold, c. 4, Sint rectores (Wilkins, , Concilia, II 512–513Google Scholar). See Huls J. in Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, Mich., pi. 25, f. 12.
99. Council of Oxford, c. 29 [24](Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 115Google Scholar). Rept. at diocesan level; Stats for an Eng. dioc, 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Ibid.,, p. 148); Stats, of Bishop Peter des Roches of Winchester, 1224? c. 13 (Ibid.,, p. 128); Stats, of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X 1259, c. 77 (ibid., p. 649); Stats of Bishop Peter Quivel of Exeter, 128, c, 12 (Ibid.,, p. 1008). Lyndwood suggests that this should be in duplicate: libi, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. adverb, in scriptis, p. 50. See Canons of the Church of England, F 17, paras. 1 & 2.
100. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. I. e. 10; Extra, 1, 23,1; Synodal Stats, for an Eng. Diocese, 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148).Google Scholar
101. Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435 at 450Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law (2nd ed., London, 1895), I, 169.Google Scholar
102. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit, 10, c. 4 gl. ad verb, sub poena, p. 53Google Scholar; Millar and Simes v Palmer and Kilby (1837), 1 Curt. 550 at 553–555Google Scholar; Cooper v Wickham (1839), 2 Curt. 303 at 312–313Google Scholar; Veley v Burder (1841), 12 Ad. &E. 265 at 314.Google Scholar
103. Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 109).
104. Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1419.Google Scholar
105. Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz. 2, No. 3), s. 4 (1) (ii).
106. See the proviso to s. 4 (1) (ii) of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956, which expressly preserves the liabilities of churchwardens with respect to visitations.
107. Quaere whether as a last resort, the visitor might be able to fall back on his historical power to close the church for divine service until the repairs have been excecuted: Lyndwood, supra.
108. Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 17 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 766–767Google Scholar); Gibson, , Visitations, p. 52.Google Scholar
109. Neville v Kirby, [1898] P. 160Google Scholar at 167; Att.-Gen. v Dean & Chapter of Ripon Cathedral, [1945] Ch. 239 at 248Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1049.Google Scholar
110. Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435Google Scholar at 456–457.
111. (3 & 4 Eliz. 2, No. 1), s. 2.
112. Canons of the Church of England C 22, para. 5; F 18.
113. See Degge, , Parson's Counsellor, pt. ii, p. 296.Google Scholar
114. The three duties of archdeacons, including that of annual visitation, set out in Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 5 are quite separate.
115. The legal formalities of a visitation are therefore neither required nor available.
116. See: Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 297Google Scholar; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 PC. 435.Google Scholar
117. See below. The churchwardens of a parish wh¸ich had already been visited parochially might attend the regular visitation for the purpose of admission to office, but would not otherwise be involved in its business.
118. Wake, , Visitation Charge, p. 4Google Scholar. See Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 2.Google Scholar
119. Assize of Clarendon, 1166, c. 1 (Stubbs, , Select Charters (9th. ed., Oxford, 1948), p. 170)Google Scholar. See Pollock, & Maitland, , Hist. of Eng. Law (2nd. ed., Cambridge, 1898), 1, 152.Google Scholar
120. Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 75, c. 47.Google Scholar
121. Reg. Stapeldon (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1892), p. 130.Google Scholar
122. See e. g. Reg. Grandisson (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1894–1899), 1, 382, II, 639Google Scholar; Reg. Pal. Dunelm., 1, 62–63Google Scholar; Reg. Wykeham (ed. Kirby, , Hampshire Rec. Soc., 1896–1899), II, 189.Google Scholar
123. Gibson, , Codex, II, 960.Google Scholar
124. Ibid.,; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 28.Google Scholar
125. Gibson, supra.
126. See below.
127. Gibson, , Codex, II, 963Google Scholar; Gibson, , Visitations, p. 74Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 30.Google Scholar
128. Statutory Declarations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62), s. 9. Canons of the Church of England, G 6, para. 2 provides for the declaration to be made immediately before such a presentment.
129. See Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 118, which though repealed is evidence of the correct practice.
130. Usually the archdeacon, but the bishop in those years when he visits and the archdeacon's visitation is inhibited:R. v Sowter, ] 1 K.B. 396, CA.Google Scholar
131. Bray v Somer (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 135Google Scholar; Bremner v Hull (1866), LR 1 CP. 748 at 760Google Scholar; Canons of the Church of England, E 1, para. 3.
132. R. v. Rice (1697), 1 Ld. Raym. 138, sub nom. Morgan v Archdeacon of Cardigan, 1 Salk. 166; R. v Simpson (1724), 1 Stra. 609Google Scholar; R. v Dr. Harris (1763), 3 Burr. 1420Google Scholar; R. v Sarum, [1916] 1 K. B. 466.Google Scholar
133. R. v Rice, supra; R. v Bishop of Sarum, supra.
134. Carpenter's Case (1681), Sir T. Raym. 439; R. v Simpson, supra; R. v Dr. Harris, supra; R. v Williams (1828), 8 B. & C. 681Google Scholar; Report of the Commission into Ecclesiastical Courts, 1832, p. 45.Google Scholar
135. Anthony v Seger (1789), 1 Hag. Con. 9Google Scholar at 10; R. v Bishop of Sarum, supra at 472.Google Scholar
136. R. v Williams, supra.
137. See: Council of Clovesho, A. D. 747, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils, III, 363–364Google Scholar, and see the letter of St. Boniface to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury: Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 377–378Google Scholar); Synod of Celchyth, A. D. 787, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 449–450Google Scholar); Odo's Canons, A. D. 943, c. 3 (Wilkins, , Concilia, I, 213Google Scholar); Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 12; Extra, 1, 31, 15; Ibid.,, 3, 39, 23; Sextus, 3, 20, 1, §4; Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar
138. Wake, , Visitation Charge, pp. 4, 17, 20.Google Scholar
139. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 515.Google Scholar
140. See e. g. Wake's Visitation Charge and Gibson's Visitations.
141. Laughton v Bishop of Sodor and Man (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 495.Google Scholar
142. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 9; Grossete 's report to the Pope and cardinals, 1250 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, I, 265Google Scholar); Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.
143. See: Acts, xix. 6; St. Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), Opera Omnia (ed. Adam Tribbechovius, Christian Gensch, Frankfurt & Leipzig, 1684), Epistolarum II, epist. lviii, Dialogus orthodoxi et Luciferiani, p. 96.
144. Decremm Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12; Ibid.,, C. 12, q. 1, c. 14. See: Reginon of Prüm, I, cc. 6, 8,10. II, c. 1 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, cols. 193–194Google Scholar, 279–281); Burchard, I, cc. 83, 84, 86, 90 (Ibid.,, CXL, cols. 570–572). For Papal mandates to enforce the episcopal visitation in England, see above. A part of the law of the English Church: Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p 255Google Scholar). See: Grosseteste, , Epistolae, ep. 127, p. 371Google Scholar; Bishop Rede's Reg. (Sussex Rec. Soc, vol. 8 (1908)), 1,99. Implied in Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.
145. Stephens, , An Historical Discourse, Briefly setting forth the nature of Procurations (London, 1661), p. 5Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, pp. 34–35Google Scholar; Blackstone, , Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1803), 1, 382Google Scholar. Grosseteste was emphatic that a bishop could not be a pastor to his flock without visiting it: Epistolae, ep. cxxvii, pp. 373–375.
146. Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255Google Scholar); Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 76Google Scholar; Stephens, , op. cit., pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
147. Canon's Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.
148. See Marshall, , George Hooper, 1640–1727 (Sherborne, 1976), pp. 116–117Google Scholar. Hooper, either himself or by his officers, visited triennially. See also Bishop Compton's visitations: Carpenter, , The Protes tant Bishop (London, 1956), p. 216.Google Scholar
149. See: Sykes, , “Bishop Wake's primary visitation in the diocese of Lincoln 1706”, Journal of Eccl. Hist., II (1951), 190;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSykes, , William Wake (Cambridge, 1957), I, 167–174.Google Scholar
150. See Sykes, , Church and State (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 137–139.Google Scholar
151. Canons of the Church of England, C 18, para. 4.
152. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th, Edn para 662; Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 137; impliedly maintained by Canons of the Church of England, G 5, para. 1. The practice is very ancient, e. g. Reg. Grandisson (1328), I, 382; Reg. Wykeham, II, 189–190; Reg. Islip, i. 7b, as quoted Gibson, Codex II, appdx. p. 1545.
153. Lyndwood, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 6, gl. ad verb, primis admissionibus, p. 225; Cripps, , Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (7th ed. London, 1921), p. 110.Google Scholar
154. Gibson, , Codex, II, 959Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1054.Google Scholar
155. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9 & 12; Extra, 3, 39, 23; Council of Oxford, c. 27 [22] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 114Google Scholar); Extravags. Stratford, 1342, c. 7, Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, Concilia, II, 699); Lyndwood, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 1, gl. ad verb, personaliter, p. 221.
157. Sextus, 1, 13, 2.
158. Old archiepiscopal and episcopal registers abound with such examples, and anciently it would appear that this was the most common kind of delegation, e. g. Reg. Romeyn (ed. Wm. Brown, Surtees Soc. 123, 128, 1913, 1916), 1, 55; Reg. Pal. Dunelm., pp. 91–92Google Scholar, 115. See also Churchill, , Canterbury Administration, II, 141–142Google Scholar, 143–144, 147–148.
159. Sextus, 1, 13, 2; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age, p. 22Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex, I, xxiii, II, 987Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, pp. 514–515.Google Scholar
160. e. g. in the diocese of Exeter: Report of the Commission into the Ecclesiastical Courts, 1883 (House of Commons Papers, sess. 1883, XXIV), II, 676.Google Scholar
161. Gibson, , Codex, I, xxiii.Google Scholar
162. Walrond v Pollard (1568), 3 Dyer 273a; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2 Bro. Parl. Cas. 179Google Scholar; Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 at 40Google Scholar; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435Google Scholar; Blackstone, , Commentaries, 1, 479Google Scholar; Stephens, , Law Relating to the Clergy (London, 1848), II, 1379Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, I, 166–172Google Scholar; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 491.
163. Gibson, , Codex, II, 957Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1045–1046.Google Scholar
164. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn. para. 1309.
165. Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 297 at 320Google Scholar, 341. See Sextus, 3, 20, 1.
166. Grosseteste's dispute with the Lincoln Dean and Chapter culminated in one of the causes célèbres of the middle ages. See Epistolae, ep. nos. 77, 80. pp. 248, 253–256
167. See Frere, , Visitn. Articles, 1. 75Google Scholaret seq.
168. Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976, (No. 3), s. 4.
169. e. g. Robert Withers v Dean & Chapter of Exeter (1611), Appeals to the Delegates, no. 15, Brit. Parlt. Papers, 1867–1868, LVII, p. 112 (Papers in the case as prepared from the appeal to the Dele gates are in the possession of the Dean and Chapter of Exeter: D. & C. Exeter MS. 7155/1); Leneve Boughton's Case (1715), Brit. Parlt. Papers, supra, no. 134, p. 172.
170. Bagg's Case (1615), 11 Co. Rep. 93b at 99b; Philips v Bury (1694), Holt KB. 715 at 725; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1Ld. Raym. 539 at 544; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2 Bro. Part. Cas. 179 at 183Google Scholar; Withers v Dean & Chapter of Exeter, supra; Leneve Boughton's Case, supra; Wynn v Sager (1740)Google Scholar, Appeals to the Delegates, no. 160, Brit. Parlt. Papers, supra, p. 185; Boyd v Phillpotts (1874)Google Scholar, L. R. 4 A. & E. 297 at 320.
171. R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester (1850), 15 Q. B. 513Google Scholar at 518–519. See Philips v Bury, supra at 724Google Scholar; Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), supra at 335Google Scholar, 340–341. A recent example may be seen in the visitation of Lincoln Cathedral last year by the bishop of Lincoln to inquire into the financial affairs of the cathedral following the losses incurred by taking the Lincoln Magna Carta to the World Expo 88 in Australia.
172. Y. B. 8 E. 3, Mich. pi. 37, f. 69 at 69–70; Philips v Bury, supra; Green v Rutherforth (1750), 1 Ves. Sen. 462 at 472.Google Scholar
173. R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra.
174. R. v Dean & Chapter of Ripon Cathedral, ]Google Scholar Ch. 239 at 252. See also Att-Gen. v Stephens (1737), 1 Atk. 358 at 360.Google Scholar
175. R. v All Souls College, Oxford (1681), Skin. 12 at 13; Philips v Bury, supra, at 720Google Scholar; Att-Gen. v Talbot (1748), 3 Atk. 662 at 674Google Scholar; R. v Bishop of Ely (1756), 1 Wm. Bl. 71 at 83Google Scholar; St. John's College, Cambridge v Todington (1757), 1 Burr. 158 at 202Google Scholar; R. v Bishop of Worcester (1815), 4 M. & S. 415 at 420Google Scholar; Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester (1849), 7 Hare 532Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester (1850), 15 Q. B. 513Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Rochester (1851), 17 Q. B. 1.Google Scholar
176. R. v Bishop of Chester (1747), I Wils BI. 22, 1 Wils. 206Google Scholar; Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester supra; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra. See Philips v Bury, supra at 726–727.Google Scholar
177. See: by the author, “The Exclusive Jurisdiction of the University Visitor”, 97 L. Q. R., (1981), pp. 610–647Google Scholar; Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] A. C. 795.Google Scholar
178. Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester, supra at 559Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra at 520.Google Scholar
179. Cathedrals Measure, 1931, (21 & 22 Geo 5, c 7), s. 9; now Cathedrals Measure 1963 (No. 2), s. 6.
180. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50; Hostiensis, Commentaria, I. de Offic. Archid., cap. 10, para 31, fo. 129 recto; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 96, 161Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex, II, 958, 969–970Google Scholar; Van Espen, , Jus EcclesiasticumGoogle Scholar, I, pt. i, tit. 12, cap. 1, para. 6, p. 74; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age, p. xxxGoogle Scholar; per Dodderidge J. in Chiverton v Trudgeon (1619), Palm. 97 at p. 98; Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 2.
181. Extra, 1,23, W; ibid., 1, 33, 16; Gibson, Codex, 1, 171; Cathedrals Measure 1963 (No. 2), s. 10(2).
182. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q, 1, cc, 4, 10, 11, 12; Gibson, , Codex, II, 958.Google Scholar
183. Shephard v Payne (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 414Google Scholar; Archdeacon of Exeter v Green, [1913] P. 21Google Scholar; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 500.
184. Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, videant, p. 50; Ibid.,, c. 4, gl. ad verb, visitationibus ecclesiarum, p. 51; Ibid.,, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 1, gl. adverb, rationabili, pp, 220–221; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 161Google Scholar. Although the office of archdeacon's official has been abolished by the Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure 1976 (No. 2), s. 7, an archdeacon may still appoint a deputy to carry out a visitation: Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 3.
185. Gibson, , Codex, II, 972Google Scholar; Dansey, , Horae Decanicae Rurales (London, 1844), 1, 160–166Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, II, 121Google Scholar, See Extra, 1, 24, 4.
186. See Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims: Migne, Patrolog, Lat., CXXV, para. 716Google Scholar, cols. 777–778.
187. See Extra, 3, 39, 6, repeated Council of London, 1200, c. 5, Cum inter ea (Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 505).Google Scholar
188. Ibid.,, where the rural deans are referred to as the “decani constituti sub episcopis”; Van Espen, , Jus Ecclesiasticum, I, pt. i, tit. vi, cap. 3, para. 7, p. 39Google Scholar; Richard, , Analyse des Conciles (Paris, 1772–1777), III, 36Google Scholar; Dansey, , Horae Dec. Rur., I, 170–171.Google Scholar
189. Gibson, , Codex, II, 972Google Scholar. See Extra, 1, 24, 4.
190. Lyndwood's description of the archdeacon, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb. visitatione, p. 49, but compare with lib. ii, tit. 1, c. 1, gl. ad. verb, decani rurales, p. 79.
191. Dansey, , Horae, Dec. Rur., II, 108–109.Google Scholar
192. See Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, capitulis, p. 54.
193. Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 2Google Scholar; Gibson, , Visitations, pp. 59–60Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 515.Google Scholar
194. See: Extra, 1, 23, 7, § 2; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quod in quodam, gl. ad verb, erubescunt, p. 15; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 1, gl. ad verb, decanos rurales, p. 14; Ibid.,, gl. ad verb, eorum vices, p. 15; lib. ii, tit. 1, c. 1, gl. ad verb. In causis, p. 79.
195. See Gibson's, “Instructions for the Deans Rural”, no. 3, Codex, 11, 1551.Google Scholar
196. Athon, gl. ad verb, erubescunt, supra.
197. Godolphin, , Repertorium, p. 54, appdx. p. 7Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, 11, 124–125.Google Scholar
198. 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 77.
199. “Rural Deans. Case for the Opinion of Dr. Phillimore”, Ecclesiastical Gazette, Tue. 12 03, 1839, No. 9, p. 164.Google Scholar
200. Decretum Grat., C. 9, q. 3, cc. 1 & 2.
201. See e. g. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, I, 84–86.Google Scholar
202. Extra, 3, 39, 14 & 25; Sextus, 3, 20, 1 & 5; Hostiensis, Commentaria, I, de Offic. Jud. Ord., cap. 11, para. 6, f. 163 verso; Grange v Denny (1616), 3 Bulst. 174 (per Dodderidge J. at 177). For an example of a medieval metropolitical visitation, see that of the diocese of Worcester by Archbishop Winchelsey: Graham, , English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929), pp. 330–359Google Scholar. A justification for the archbishop's full powers of correction is set out by Archbishop Peckham: Reg. Ep. J. Peckham, I, 328–334Google Scholar; Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, 922–932Google Scholar. See also the terms of commission to visit given to commissaries by successive Archbishops of Canterbury: Churchill, Canterbury Administration, 1, 176, 307, 313, 329, 334.
203. Gobbet's Case (1634), Cro. Car. 339, S. C., 3 Salk. 379; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 431. But c. f. Twisden J. in Ford v Welden (1664), Sir T. Raym. 91.
204. The famous judgment Romana ecclesia of Innocent IV; Sextus, 3, 20, 1, confirmed in Papal bull to Archbishop Mepeham, 1329; Cal. Papal Reg., Letters, 11, 290–291Google Scholar. See Churchill, , Canterbury Administration, 1, 143–146Google Scholar, 330 (Reg. Arundel, I, f. 469), and for an example of the process, Reg. Chichele (ed. Jacob, , Oxford, 1945), fo. 247Google Scholar, 111, 463 et seq., See also: Gibson, , Codex, II, 957Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1046.Google Scholar
205. Sextus, 3, 20, 1.
206. Ann. Mon., 1, 303.
207. Sextus, 3, 20, 1; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Ld. Raym. 539, 1 Salk. 134.
208. Grosseteste, , Epistolae, ep. 127, p. 376.Google Scholar
209. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 10, 11.
210. Council of Clovesho, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils, III, 363Google Scholar); Synod of Celchyth, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., 449Google Scholar); Odo's Canons, c. 3 (Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 213Google Scholar).
211. The Council of Lugo, A. D. 569 recognised that certain dioceses were too large to permit an annual visitation: Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, IX, col. 815Google Scholar. See also Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina (Magontiaci, 1786–1787), VI, pt. ii, lib. 3, c. 78, para. 15, p. 546.
212. c. 8 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10).
213. c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar
214. Hostiensis, , Summa, III, de Censib., para. 19, col. 1040.Google Scholar
215. Degge, , Parson's Counsellor, II, 294Google Scholar. For the need for such supervision, see Decretum Grat., D. 94, c. 3.
216. Thompson, Hamilton, Rotuli Gravesend Episcopi Lincolniensis (1258–1279), p. xvii.Google Scholar
217. Reg. Bronescombe, Quivil and Bytton (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1889), pp. 294–302Google Scholar; Reg. Stapeldon (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1892), pp. 547–560Google Scholar; Reg. Grandisson, III, 1524–1532Google Scholar; Reg. Stafford (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1886), pp. 476–479.Google Scholar
218. Cardinal Pole in the Legatine Council of 1555: Wilkins, , Concilia, IV, 126.Google Scholar
219. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, gen. index of docts., xxvi, p. 156.Google Scholar
220. De Eccles, . et Min. Ejus, c. 12 (ed. Cardwell, Oxford, 1850, p. 105).Google Scholar
221. Quaere whether even this is possible at the present day: see Bursell, R., “What is the Place of Custom in English Canon Law?”, (1989) 1 Eccl. L. J.(4), p. 12 at pp. 23–26.Google Scholar
222. Bursell, op. cit., p. 23.
223. Epistolae, p. 127, p. 421.
224. C. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar
225. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10; Sextus, 3, 20, 1.
226. See notes 56–58 above.
227. See below.
228. Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 5; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 500.
229. Extra, 1,23,1.
230. Extra, 1, 23, 6; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, visitatione, p. 49.
231. Customs of the diocese of Salisbury, 1228 X 1256?, no. 11 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 513–514Google Scholar); Statutes of the diocese of Norwich, 1240 X 1266? no. 81 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 361–362Google Scholar). See also the Synodal Statutes of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X 1259, no. 77 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 649).Google Scholar
232. See e. g. Shephard v Payne (1862), 12 C. B. (N. S.), 414 at 418–428.Google Scholar
233. Indeed, the contrary is asserted, supra.
234. There is a reference to a second visitation in the Reformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum, de Eccles. et Min. Ejus, c. 6 (ed. Cardwell, p. 101).Google Scholar
235. Shephard v Payne, supra, at 417.Google Scholar
236. Ibid.,
237. See Bursell, R., “What is the place of Custom in English Canon Law”, (1989) 1 Eccl L. J. (4), at pp. 22, 25–26.Google Scholar
238. Extra, 1, 23, 6; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875) L. R. 6 P. C. 435.Google Scholar
239. Lunne v Dodson (1661), 3 Salk. 201, approved R v Sowter, ] 1 K. B. 396, CA; Gibson, , Codex, 11. 958Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1050Google Scholar; Canons of the Church of England, G 5, para. 2.
240. R. v Sowter, supra; approved R. v Sarum, [1916] 1 K. B. 466.Google Scholar
241. Anon, (n. d.), Noy, 123. Sidesmen may also be cited.
242. Clayton v Archbishop of Dublin (1703)Google Scholar, Appeals to the Delegates, no. 116, Brit. Parlt. Papers, 1867–1868, LVI1, p. 161; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2Google Scholar Bro. Parl. Cas. 179; Harrison v Archbishop of Dublin (1713), 2Google Scholar Bro. Parl. Cas. 199; McGeath v Geraghty (1866), 15 W. R. 127Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, 11, 1050–1051Google Scholar. It is possible that this is not caught by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1) (ss. 14, 69), for the punishment of a contempt of the visitation court is not a proceeding for the punishment of an ecclesiastical offence but the means possessed by any court of law to enforce its own orders and authority, and therefore is not a proceeding instituted in an ecclesiastical court: Coleridge C. J. in Martin v Mackonochie (1879). 4 Q. B. D. 697Google Scholar at 790–793, CA; Whiteside C. J. in McGeath v Geraghty, supra (with ref. to Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. I.)Google Scholar
243. Clewer v Pullen (1684), Rothery's Precedents, No. 79, p. 39; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.)para. 1357.
244. i. e. there is no element of compulsion.
245. McGeath v Geraghty, supra; Blane v Geraghty (1866), 15 W. R. 133.Google Scholar
246. Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 187Google Scholar, et seq.
247. Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 627Google Scholar, there attrib. to Hugh de Wells, but more likely derived from Grosseteste's statutes: Cheney, , Synodalia, pp. 122–124.Google Scholar
248. Ann. Mon., I, 296–298.Google Scholar
249. Ann. Mon., I, 307–310.Google Scholar
250. e. g. Reg Giffard (York) (ed. Brown, Wm., Surtees Soc, 109, 1904), p. 302Google Scholar; Reg. Wickwane (ed. Brown, Wm., Surtees Soc, 114, 1907), pp. 116–118Google Scholar; Memoriale sive registrum Henrici Prioris Monasterü Cantuariensis, “Articuli super quibus inquirendum est in visitationibus prelatorum”, f. 61 (B. L. MS. Cotton, Galba EIV); Reg. Grandisson, II, 858–860Google Scholar; Reg. Courteney, f. 90 (Churchill, Cant. Admin., 11, 142–143).
251. Gibson, , Codex, 11, 960.Google Scholar
252. Gibson, , Codex, 11, 963.Google Scholar
253. See Canons of the Church of England, G 6, paras. 1 & 2.
254. See Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 119.
255. Dr. Kathleen Major informed the author that Bishop Wake introduced articles to the clergy as well as the churchwardens in the diocese of Lincoln, and that this marked an important change in the use made by the bishop of his visitation. This is now the practice in a number of dioceses. Canons of the Church of England, G 6, para. 1 appears to require this, but may be based on a misunderstanding of the role of the minister in making presentments as set out in Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 113.
256. Interestingly (and rather surprisingly) the replies of the archdeacons to the questionnaire sent out by the Working Party on Visitations indicate that even now on rare occasions the visitation has furnished the first indication of a problem in a parish.
You have
Access
